Nolan backs Brown-Jackson for Supreme Court

Guy Page 

When former US Attorney for Vermont Christina Nolan of Westford announced her candidacy for US Senate on Feb. 22, she promised to be an independent Republican like Sen. Susan Collins, a liberal from Maine, which closely resembles Vermont in demographics, politics, and economic challenges.  

Yesterday, Nolan removed any lingering doubt of her intent to mark her own path through the Vermont Republican Primary to the U.S. Senate. Without any prompting, she publicly announced her support for Biden Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown-Jackson, even as many sitting Republican senators are chastising the federal judge for reputedly ‘soft’ sentencing decisions and involvement with a pro-CRT private school. 

Collins is viewed as the most likely ‘yes’ vote for Brown among Senate Republicans, based on comments made earlier this month. 

“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,” Nolan said in a March 28 campaign statement on Twitter

“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,” Nolan said. “Politics should play no role in the confirmation process, a lesson that politicians on both sides have sadly strayed from in recent years.

“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.”

Congressman Peter Welch (D-VT), the only Democrat running for the U.S. Senate, immediately backed Brown-Jackson after her nomination. Vermont Daily Chronicle last night emailed Gerald Malloy, the other current candidate in the GOP primary for U.S. Senate, for a comment on Nolan’s announcement. Here’s his response:

“As a US Senator I would consider all nominations based on character and qualifications. For nominations as important as the lifetime Supreme Court appointment I would engage the nominee in person, and I would observe and participate in nomination hearings in person to the maximum extent possible, so I could form my own opinion, for Vermonters and our Country, as to the character and qualifications of the nominee.

“I have four children and am reminded of Dr. King’s quote ‘I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.’ I believe in those words of wisdom, and I do not think race or gender or diversity should be part of the discussion in choosing a Supreme Court Justice, or any nominee or candidate for that matter. Character and Qualifications.

“As I have not personally met Ketanji Brown Jackson I cannot commit to how I would vote for her as a US Senator. I have reviewed her qualifications and she does have substantial and impressive qualifications. As a US Senator, I would not make a decision on her character, and ability to serve fairly and objectively as a guardian and protector of the Constitution, before meeting her and observing hearings for myself.”

Nolan’s announcement drew a surprised response from a national media outlet. 

“You don’t see this every day – a Republican Senate candidate calling for the confirmation of President Biden’s nominee to the Supreme Court,” Paul Steinhauser wrote yesterday for Fox News.

47 replies »

    • In her defense, US Attorney Nolan had a well-founded priority of going after human traffickers and other predators. I would say that she supports Brown-Jackson DESPITE these rulings, and not because of them. The nomination of Brown-Jackson is likely a done deal and it is beneficial to bring her misgivings out for a good public airing. The usual suspects like Sen. Leahy and the lamestream media will accuse her Republican critics of “playing politics” by asking the questions that need to be asked of her. Her failure to provide answers is telling and of great concern..
      Candidate Nolan, to her credit, is doing a good job of not alienating the moderate Vermont voter, which is what she will need to prevail over her November opponents who have no record of
      meaningful accomplishments, other than their own intersectionality victimhoods and their promises to give away more of the public treasury to those who contribute little to society…the stuff that liberal Vermont voters just can’t resist.

      • Compromising principles in order not to alienate the moderate Vermont voter is not a good look.

  1. Maybe Nolan can define ‘woman’? Is she a biologist?

    Idiocracy doesn’t even come close to where the world is going.

  2. There will be a primary, but In Baseball terms, it’s the top of the first, she’s the first batter up, and that’s strike one.

  3. 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.

  4. And people said I was a misogynist for simply pointing out that most women will favor the collective, leftist, feminine collective above all other principles- in this case, to the point of coddling actual pedophiles. I just don’t vote for women anymore, especially after the past 5-6 years of hysteria and the past two years of authoritarian demands for “safety,” in particular. And trust me, I didn’t start out this way. Check out the names on all the insane legislation in Montpelier of late.

    • Here we go again. Im sorry but not voting for someone based on their genitalia is ignorant and dumb. Youre making us look bad and again i smell a democrat troll. Lots of great women patriots out there. Given that there are more women then men statistically, one could argue there are likely MORE qualified women then men. My issue is a particular candidate or justice being chosen primarily based on their genitalia and skin color. Sorry but thats sexist and racist and dementia joe has made two major candidate endorsements based on race and sex before merit and experience. One more indication of an incompetent figure head. Can you imagine being elected to a position primarily due to your sex or color? One would have to question their authentic eligibility and true credentials for the entirety of their term. In this case for LIFE! “Do i really deserve this?” Even if those credentials were one’s primary qualification in candidate eligibility, why would you ever come out and say it? Completely ridiculous.

  5. 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.

    • Thank you! 1st, their both a fraud when it comes to the Constitution! 2nd where do we Republicans find characters like Nolan?!! She’s cut from the same cloth as those mentally disturbed characters that want to change our VT Constitution to make it legal to kill babies in and out of the womb while at the same time day it’s inhumane to execute savages like the one who raped and killed that poor UVM girl!!!

  6. Also, it is not for a judge to provide lenient sentences because that judge disagrees with the sentencing guidelines. It is Congress’s role to set those guidelines. If you don’t like it, lobby Congress to change the guidelines, but circumventing those guidelines is legislating from the bench–exactly what she claimed she would not do because of fealty to the Constitution.

  7. If people are really voting for women based solely on the fact that they are women, that’s sexist. If you will only vote for candidates based on the fact that they are men, that is equally as racist. Informed voters cast their ballots based on merit and experience. Not genitalia and not a R or D next to one’s name. Such voting is illinformed and based on speculative generizatons. Not every candidate will check every partisan box so its up to the voter to make the best choice based on all available candate data. Really its pretty simple. You just have to invest a little time doing your homework

  8. Well, you can keep voting for women who purport to be conservative, or at least not leftists, and you can keep being surprised that they tend to support one another, including the staunch pedo-sympathising leftists, over and above those purported political stances when push comes to shove. It’s basic evolutionary psychology, and it’s not even remotely “racist.”LOL. And I don’t vote for men just because they’re men. They have to actually stand for something I support. You can certainly feel free to vote how you choose, and women can feel free to run for office. I’m just done being fooled.

  9. Ms Nolan is entitled to her opinion, but I think we already have more than our quota of RHINO’s in D.C. It also comes as no surprise that Rep Welch couldn’t wait to endorse her for Supreme Court Justice. He saw that she checked the boxes he was concerned about, and her judicial record or philosophy is irrelevant. It seems that her confirmation is all but guaranteed, but I shutter to think about the decisions she comes up with. CRT will be part of many rulings, whether it has any bearing on the case at hand or not.

  10. Pedophila is not political. However, supporting any judge who is lenient across the board in the criminal sentencing of this violent crime is condoning this horrific evil act of sexual abuse and is facilitating the perpetrators in the sex trafficking business.

    • Good point…..And if prop 5 passes in November pedophiles will start getting passes so please vote it down.

  11. Here’s the plan for dems in the primary for the vt senate seat. Mark my words. Since Welch will easily win on the democrat ballot, a large percent of the dems will vote in the republican primary to assure that rino Nolan wins there and therefore blocks Gerald Malloy from winning. This a very old time tested tactic of the left.

    • “…. a large percent of the dems will vote in the republican primary to assure that rino Nolan wins there and therefore blocks Gerald Malloy.”
      No, don’t think so. By the primary Vermonters will know what the Democrats are and conservatives vote in huge numbers in the primary for a true conservative. People of all stripes are disgusted with Dims. Also, the elections will be carefully monitors to catch any foolery as has been in the past. The Dims fail at everything.

    • I would like to think that the race for US House is one which will keep most democrats voting in their own primary. So far we have the cutesy “farmgirl” lawyer/activist, the lesbian and the Person of Color. I think another woman (can I use that word?) announced this week and I dont know what her “victimhood status” is yet, but i’m sure we will hear all about it soon.

  12. Simply put, Nolan just lost my vote! Judge Brown-Jackson should not be allowed anywhere near the Supreme Court if we want to maintain our Christian culture! People who sympathize with porn addicts and child abusers should not be promoted to our highest court.

  13. Whew, that makes the rest of whether I might think Nolin would be a good candidate easy!

    • It was already clear that Nolan is just another plant directly from the Washington swamp!

  14. Is this the best we can do? Another DC insider supporting a candidate based solely on race and gender. A candidate who refused to answer a simple question. wcax would have gone bezerk if either Kavanaugh or Barrette failed to andwer a question fully and completely but this is tolerated because the dems want a Token not a Justice. Vermont needs to wake up as the DC insiders like welch, sanders and leahy are why your paying $5 a gallon fir gas and forced to wear masks. But Vermont will not acknowledge any of this. nolin isn’t getting my vote and Vermont GOP isn’t getting my money until they smarten up.

  15. What is a woman?
    Christina Nolan is as much of a liberal rhino as Sen. Susan Collins from Maine.
    In Brown we’re looking at an extremely winsome nominee. We’re looking at someone who is answering questions with ease insofar as she wants to answer the questions. She doesn’t want to answer the question who is a woman, and we know why. It is because in the age of the transgender revolution, and make no mistake, that is an issue that is sure to come back again and again to the Supreme Court. She was nominated by a president who has indicated that he is all in sofar as it is even understandable as to what all in means, President Joe Biden indicated that he is an enthusiastic supporter of LGBTQ, wherever that leads.
    Make no mistake, we now have all the evidence we need to know exactly how Judge Jackson would adjudicate issues related to questions of gender, including the transgender revolution. She, like the president who nominated her, must be assumed now to be all for it.
    h/t to Mohler

  16. That the democrats will put her on the court despite her distain for the constitution says a lot. It is now ‘conservative’ to respect our founding document and principles. That used to be the starting point.

  17. “Jackson was the judge in the case of U.S. v. Cane, which involved “over 6,500 files depicting children appearing to be of elementary, middle and high school ages, engaged in sexual acts or posing sexually,” Fox News reported.”
    If Nolan had been a Liberal Democrat candidate iI would not have been surprised… But somehow this just does not line up with my thoughts on where the Vermont GOP should be standing.
    So sorry, I do not support this!

  18. Once a Fed, always a Fed. A crooked Fed, always a crooked Fed. Another Fed, another fraud. She is likely getting her talking points from General Milley. They are a disgrace!

  19. I’m not an attorney nor do I play one on the internet but, I do have critical thinking skills.

    Here are some things that I’ve found out about SCOTUS nominee. Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    During Tuesday’s confirmation hearing, Jackson has said she’s “not sure” if CRT is being taught in schools, which Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said was a “little hard to reconcile” because the Georgetown Day School – where she sits in the board of trustees – has assigned or recommend “Antiracist Baby,” by critical race theory pioneer Ibram X. Kendi.  ( Fox news 3/23)

    How can she NOT KNOW?

    But seriously , that’s the tactic they use when confronted on the CRT or DEI ( Diversity, Equity, Inclusion ) model.
    A number of parents and guardians were treated just like that with the Springfield VT school administrators.
    There were a number of clear indicators and evidences that the school leadership , under the authority of Zach McLaughlin , was bringing in many pieces of the CRT/DEI agenda. Most of which we parents and guardians have records of. Some going back 2-4 years before the denial from Zach McLaughlin.

    Secondly. This offered up appointee to the court cannot define what a woman is . Ergo , cannot define what a male is either.
    See the write-up on the Federalist(dot)come website dated 03/23/2022 and others.

    She’s also had numerous issues not being able to define what a human fetus is.

    Also note that , the GOP isn’t using the previous , underhanded tactics of the Democart-Marxist party like they’ve used on Brett Kavanaugh , Amy Comey Barrett or, many years back, Judge Thomas.

    Character assassination and inventing “eyewitnesses “ like the Democratic party has done too many times in the past , isn’t the mark of a respectful republican lawmaker.

    Thirdly , she meets at least two of the CRT intersectionality slots. For those who love putting people into little boxes.

    1. She’s Black
    2. She’s a female ( even if she doesn’t know what that is)

    Lastly, as a candidate , Joe Biden under pressure from certain activist politicians , announced that , if elected he would appoint a black woman to the Supreme court. Choosing someone based off of skintone or gender is either racist or “reversed-sexist” or both. Certainly not in the mindset of great civil rights leaders.

    Miss Nolan has great credentials and, if she wins the VT primary , chances are very likely that I would vote for her . But, on this issue I must respectfully disagree.

    • A typical rino comment in support of a completely unqualified candidate that will vote for baby murder!

  20. I will be FULLY supporting West Point grad and retired veteran , Gerald Malloy from Perkinsville VT , who’s wife is an attorney.

Leave a Reply