Non-sequitur... |
| The Republicans (most not all) have been disgraceful during this hearing. They've made this a waste of time. This hearing has been a weird hazing practice for Justice Jackson. |
I can't understand how the people sitting behind and supporting someone like Lindsey Graham can live with themselves knowing they support someone so disgusting and spineless. |
Oh please. They’ve been no more disgraceful than Democrats were during the Kavanaugh and Barrett hearings. Talk about “weird hazing practices.” Get over yourself. |
Well said. It’s disappointing, to say the least, that she feels she has to stick to the party narrative. |
They’re building their sound bites for their future campaigns. Their base will be thrilled to see their representatives doing —what they will likely view as putting an overly educated uppity Black woman in her place. This public nastiness is a total win for them, and even more so if they can get KBJ to stumble publicly and on camera. |
It’s exactly the same situation Barrett faced. The Democrats were attack dogs and the Republicans were respectful and allowed her to speak. It’s amazing that some of you are determined to pretend Jackson is somehow being treated differently. She’s not. |
I am impressed by her composure. Graham, Cruz, Hawley, and Blackburn have been especially unhinged and disrespectful towards her. This morning Graham exclaimed a profanity in response to her partial answer (he refused to let her finish yet kept demanding she answer him). |
Pizzagate anyone? |
Bad behavior is bad behavior. It's not justifed based on who is doing it or it having been done before. Also Barrett was grossly unqualified compared to KBJ which led to much of the fodder from Dems. Republicans do not have that advantage with KBJ so they're arguing irrelevant points that are outside of her purview. It's not really the same. |
Zero self-awareness. Need we remind you AGAIN about the nastiness Democrats displayed to Barrett and Kavanaugh? Take a seat and maybe review *those* hearings, why don’t you.
|
Irrelevant when we're talking about the current hearing. Why punish Ketanji for what happened in the past? |
I also think by acknowledging she’s not a biology expert with regards to gender she showed open mindedness and flexibility and a willingness to listen. There was absolutely nothing wrong with her answer. |
Well of course you would say that. How unsurprising. Regardless of your personal animosity towards Barrett, she is indeed well-qualified. The ABA says as much, so you’ll simply have to unclench. She’s well-qualified and she’s now a SCJ. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/rep/releases/american-bar-association-judge-barrett-is-well-qualified-to-serve-on-supreme-court |
Who’s punishing her? She’s being treated the way nominees are always treated. Why should she be given the kid-glove treatment? |