Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t know what a woman is.

Do you think RBG would be stumped?

This Ketanji is no RBG.

There are cis women and trans women. I'm stunned she was unable to state at least this. WTH

Don't be naive. KBJ wasn't stumped. She refused to answer with words that could be used in sound bite by scum Republicans who are more than willing to use degenerate tactics in ad campaigns for November elections.

The video clips are already making rounds. Publicity was not averted.

Of course not, but can you imagine how those low life Republican thugs would exploit KBJ with a clip of her saying the words "trans women" ?

No one - anywhere in America - is living in a bubble clutching pearls when they hear the term "trans woman." It's simply an imaginary situation.

Again, are you that naive? Why do you think Cruz would slink so low as to show enlarged images from a children's book? It's precisely because there are pearl clutchers living outside our DC bubble who are horrified when they think children are hearing words like transgender.

[Anonymous]

The refusal to define something as simple as a woman is clearly a political one. After all, you can just as easily say "I'm not a mathematician" when someone asks you what is 2+2. If you did that, everyone would assume you're either a) stupid or b) childishly obtuse.

I don't know what she privately thinks in her mind, but she knows what the masters of the Democratic Party have ordained. There is no independence of thought among Democrats. You comply with what is ordained or suffer their wrath.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see a non-lawyer on the court eventually, and if not, definitely not someone from an Ivy.

Oh yes let's have a businessman. That seems to work out well. (S) Do you know how ignorant you are? Their job is to interpret subtleties in the law using their years of case knowledge. How would a non lawyer even know how to look up precedent? I think Thomas, with years on the EEOC and a couple of years as an appeals judge had very thin qualifications. He had never tried a case.

Honestly, precedent is not a difficult concept and neither is interpreting subtleties in language. I'm a lawyer but I dont think one has to be lawyer to be a judge. I too would like a non-lawyer or at least non-ivy person on the court. At least KBJ was a public defender. We need a broader variety of experiences on the Court.

Non Ivy? Absolutely.

Non legal? When we let non-pilots fly fighter jets, non-MDs perform surgery, non-scientists develop vaccines, etc.

Prescient is not a hard concept. But applying it at the Supreme Court level is very difficult and complex, before we get to the issue of multi-jurisdictional civil procedure, issues of pendant and ancillary jurisdiction, the need to apply analyze a highly technical point of rehabilitation of a witness in a federal civil trial, and procedural vs substantive due process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Last chance for a black woman as justice. Next an Asian followed by hispanics as their majority — thankfully — takes over the country.

You don’t want this. Asians and Hispanics are switching to the R party in droves

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should all be able to come together to protect children from predators. That leftists can’t see her light sentencing is a problem is appalling. Minority children are a huge percentage of the victims.

None of those seven cases were as light as Acosta's sentence for Epstein. Plus, wasn't she criticized for being to harsh on other child porn cases?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm so tired of these male Senators constantly interrupting her as she's trying to answer their questions.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t know what a woman is.

Do you think RBG would be stumped?

This Ketanji is no RBG.

There are cis women and trans women. I'm stunned she was unable to state at least this. WTH

Don't be naive. KBJ wasn't stumped. She refused to answer with words that could be used in sound bite by scum Republicans who are more than willing to use degenerate tactics in ad campaigns for November elections.

The video clips are already making rounds. Publicity was not averted.

Of course not, but can you imagine how those low life Republican thugs would exploit KBJ with a clip of her saying the words "trans women" ?

No one - anywhere in America - is living in a bubble clutching pearls when they hear the term "trans woman." It's simply an imaginary situation.

Again, are you that naive? Why do you think Cruz would slink so low as to show enlarged images from a children's book? It's precisely because there are pearl clutchers living outside our DC bubble who are horrified when they think children are hearing words like transgender.

You are conflating 2 separate things.

One would be an adult saying the words "trans woman" with an adult audience.

The other separate situation is transgender material or images in children's books.

[Anonymous]

JFC, folks. The hearings are meaningless. Are there really any Senators who have not made up their minds already? KBJ will be confirmed with the support of all Democrats and a small number of Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The refusal to define something as simple as a woman is clearly a political one. After all, you can just as easily say "I'm not a mathematician" when someone asks you what is 2+2. If you did that, everyone would assume you're either a) stupid or b) childishly obtuse.

I don't know what she privately thinks in her mind, but she knows what the masters of the Democratic Party have ordained. There is no independence of thought among Democrats. You comply with what is ordained or suffer their wrath.

People aren't numbers, even though you apparently view them that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should all be able to come together to protect children from predators. That leftists can’t see her light sentencing is a problem is appalling. Minority children are a huge percentage of the victims.

Her sentences weren’t any different than anyone else’s. And is this Gorsuch guy a “leftist”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd like to see a non-lawyer on the court eventually, and if not, definitely not someone from an Ivy.

Oh yes let's have a businessman. That seems to work out well. (S) Do you know how ignorant you are? Their job is to interpret subtleties in the law using their years of case knowledge. How would a non lawyer even know how to look up precedent? I think Thomas, with years on the EEOC and a couple of years as an appeals judge had very thin qualifications. He had never tried a case.

Honestly, precedent is not a difficult concept and neither is interpreting subtleties in language. I'm a lawyer but I dont think one has to be lawyer to be a judge. I too would like a non-lawyer or at least non-ivy person on the court. At least KBJ was a public defender. We need a broader variety of experiences on the Court.

Non Ivy? Absolutely.

Non legal? When we let non-pilots fly fighter jets, non-MDs perform surgery, non-scientists develop vaccines, etc.

Prescient is not a hard concept. But applying it at the Supreme Court level is very difficult and complex, before we get to the issue of multi-jurisdictional civil procedure, issues of pendant and ancillary jurisdiction, the need to apply analyze a highly technical point of rehabilitation of a witness in a federal civil trial, and procedural vs substantive due process.

None of which would be difficult for anyone with a high verbal score. At its core it's just being able to understand and conceptualize complex language and constructs. I'm not saying everyone can do it but it's more about a type of intellect and not a type of training.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should all be able to come together to protect children from predators. That leftists can’t see her light sentencing is a problem is appalling. Minority children are a huge percentage of the victims.

That’s the thing. Her sentencing is not light. People keep explaining this, and you are determined to ignore the explanation. Her sentences see s in line with the majority of other judges and the US probation reports. As has been explained 100 times, the guidelines have not been updated since before PCs were a thing. They are dealing with sentencing guidelines when posting and sharing on the internet was not a thing. Congress needs to update we.

You really need to throw different spaghetti against the wall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t know what a woman is.

Do you think RBG would be stumped?

This Ketanji is no RBG.

There are cis women and trans women. I'm stunned she was unable to state at least this. WTH

Don't be naive. KBJ wasn't stumped. She refused to answer with words that could be used in sound bite by scum Republicans who are more than willing to use degenerate tactics in ad campaigns for November elections.

The video clips are already making rounds. Publicity was not averted.

Of course not, but can you imagine how those low life Republican thugs would exploit KBJ with a clip of her saying the words "trans women" ?

No one - anywhere in America - is living in a bubble clutching pearls when they hear the term "trans woman." It's simply an imaginary situation.

Again, are you that naive? Why do you think Cruz would slink so low as to show enlarged images from a children's book? It's precisely because there are pearl clutchers living outside our DC bubble who are horrified when they think children are hearing words like transgender.

You are conflating 2 separate things.

One would be an adult saying the words "trans woman" with an adult audience.

The other separate situation is transgender material or images in children's books.

Again, don't be naive. Just because you and I see these as separate issues, does not mean that Republicans will not exploit this sound bite in upcoming political ads and use the phrase out of context as a way of scaremongering parents.

[Anonymous]

It's so refreshing that the Democrats (right now it's Feinstein) are letting her talk. You can literally here a change in her voice and see the mannerism go from stress and frustration to a relief she can finally / actually explain herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We should all be able to come together to protect children from predators. That leftists can’t see her light sentencing is a problem is appalling. Minority children are a huge percentage of the victims.

Even the National Review is calling BS on this. Shut it.


https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/republicans-missed-opportunity-in-the-judge-jackson-hearings/