Christina Nolan says confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson to nation’s high court

On Monday, Christina Nolan, Vermont’s former United States Attorney and currently a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, issued the following statement supporting Ketanji Brown Jackson for U.S. Supreme Court:

I have been impressed with Judge Jackson’s performance and support her confirmation to the United States Supreme Court. She has the required legal experience, temperament and clear understanding of the judicial branch’s role interpreting the law. As a former prosecutor, I will always treat each judicial nominee with the respect they deserve, and vote for or against them based solely on their qualifications even if I may not agree with every decision they’ve ever made. Politics should play no role in the confirmation process, a lesson that Washington politicians on both sides have sadly strayed from in recent years. Finally, March is Women’s History Month, and diversity is crucially important in all facets of public life. As a candidate to become Vermont’s first female senator, I believe Judge Jackson will bring much-needed diversity to the highest Court in the land, and hope that she is confirmed swiftly.

Image courtesy of Public domain
Spread the love

20 thoughts on “Christina Nolan says confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson to nation’s high court

  1. I also watched the hearings and read her records of consistently “light sentences” for PEDO’s …disgusting….we can cross Nolan off the list

  2. When you see a candidate or elected official out on the street this election season, ask them point blank “Are you pro-Pedo?” Normalizing sexual assault and torture on children is their agenda. Pervmont is not a joke name for this State – it is really what this State has become.

  3. This is how the VTGOP has become completely irrelevant. UNIPARTY candidates make the uniparty stronger. She did a good job from what I can tell fighting crime, but clearly she is pimpin’ for the New World Order.

    This is how the VTGOP loses every single year for 20+ years I a row, they never get stronger because of stuff like this.

    And they just voted to do more of this.

  4. Everyone should keep a close eye on this. Not one Republican senator should vote for this SCOTUS nominee. The RINO watch begins. I predict at least two will vote for her in the name of bipartisanship.

  5. I watched the confirmation hearings, Judge Jackson was very deceptive on many
    questions, especially when she stated she didn’t remember the cases, pour BS.

    I remember watching Judge Barrett hearing she sat day with DemocRATs trying to
    trip her up as she sat there and answered every question without one cheat note !!

    First off when Biden stated he would only support a ” Female ” of color for a SCOTUS
    nominee and Judge Jackson couldn’t ” wouldn’t ” define what a woman is…..woke front
    and center……..

    If Christina Nolan supports Judge Jackson, I now have my reservations about Nolan, I
    was hoping she was right-leaning, not woke !!

  6. Ms Nolan joins Jackson on the list of ignoramuses that rise to the public domain without awareness.

  7. Picking people for their pronouns is exactly why the countries in the poor state of affairs it’s in now.
    Instead of picking from all people for the best of what their job will entail this mis administration
    is picking from 3-13% of the people to fill a gender/color/pronoun slot. Of course since we have
    the top two puppets being the lowest IQ pair ever representing the country you don’t want the underlings being much brighter..
    Also thou this pick is endorsed by the left leaning bar association her short bench time is full of
    wrong decisions and her performance in the hearings were a abdominal failure. I know they have to
    pick a lefty but this one is the left side of the next planet..

  8. Ms Nolan why in the world would you support a person who doesn’t know what a woman is… Even a 3 yr old knows what a woman is. Truthfully the only reason Jackson was picked is that she is black and a woman. Nothing about her education, her morals, etc, etc. Just because of her sex and color. She’s already proved she is stupid.!!! Q: What is the definition of a woman? Jackson Answer: “I don’t know, I’m not a BIOLOGIST”

    I know it’s hard nowadays.. Seeing some men thinking they are women.. (but still, have their penis)
    Nolan, you must be really close to Phil Scott as you’re both RINOS..

  9. Ms. Nolan is just another commiecrat in elephant’s clothing. Is this what the Republican party offers us Mr. Dame? Any Supreme Court nominee that doesn’t believe in our founding documents cannot hold up to the oath of office.

    Ketanji Brown Jackson’s answer to the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms was that we citizens have the right to keep and bear arms in our homes not outside of them.

    Nolan lost my vote and when I get thru emailing everyone, I know in VT she’ll lose a few more.

    • I don’t require some two-bit, black-robed tyrant to explain to me what our Bill of Rights mean. I am more than capable of reading and understanding the English language. I know what my ancestors bequeathed to me and I will not give one bit of it up without a fight.

      They pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor – I will do nothing less.

  10. VTGOP strikes again!

    It’s a really big tent, lol. Notice she doesn’t even discuss why she is a better qualified candidate?

    It’s a big tent, we don’t care about character, just your sex/race/ etc, etc.

    Uniparty is alive and strong in Vermont. VTGOP loves everybody, they really like NWO pimps and rino’s, my oh my. Wonder what this election cycle will bring us? How will we compare with national.

    ooh, ooh, ooh, Mr. Kotter pick me, pick me, I know the answer. “if we make the party progressive, marxist we’ll get more votes. We’ll win the election!”

    “Vinny, you just got promoted to head of the VTGOP!” “Great Idea!” shouts Mr. Kotter.

    Class dismissed.

  11. Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states that:
    “In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”

    ‘Appellate jurisdiction’ is the power of a court to review and potentially modify the decisions made by another court or tribunal.

    A Supreme Court justice is, therefore, expected to have a grasp of ‘law and fact’. Is it not, then, legitimate to ask a prospective justice to describe their understanding of certain facts, especially as they might pertain to existing case law?

    Is it unreasonable, then, to ask a prospective justice to express their understanding of what the definition of a ‘woman’ is? Or to ask their understanding of when ‘life’ begins? What is the prospective justice’s understanding of the definition of ‘birth’? At what point in time does the prospective justice understand one’s citizenship to begin?

    What, for example, is the definition of a ‘citizen of the United States’? In the infamously worst decision rendered by the SCOTUS, the Dred Scott case, the court determined that the definition of a ‘U.S. citizen’ was based on one’s heritage, and that African Americans could not be citizens. The courts definition in Dred Scott is now described as a ‘tortured meaning’.

    Had the similar questions to those put to prospective justice Brown-Jackson been put to then Chief Justice Taney at his appointment hearing, to what extent might the Civil War have been avoided? Jackson-Brown’s reticence in this regard demonstrates to me a deficiency in her ability to ‘understand’ legal jurisprudence, “both as to law and fact”. Her ‘understanding’, as expressed during the hearings, were as equally ‘tortured’ as were Chief Justice Taney’s opinions in the infamous Dred Scott case.

    Beware. What goes around, comes around.

  12. Nolan said: “Politics should play no role in the confirmation process”…
    I am still backing Nolan but she needs to admit that the questions about the sentencing policies and how one “defines a woman” of this nominee are NOT political, they are a window into how she thinks and bases her rulings while on the bench. This is in stark contrast to the pure politics and character assassination that took place during Justice Cavanaugh’s confirmation hearings where he was asked questions such as “do you like beer?” and “what is boofing?”. Senators have every good reason to highlight and question the sentencing policies of a judge/nominee, just as US Attorney Nolan questioned the criminal charge policies of Chittenden County State’s Attorney Sarah George in the past.

Comments are closed.