Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

BS. Democrats slammed Barrett based on her personal religious beliefs. It was disgraceful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well said. It’s disappointing, to say the least, that she feels she has to stick to the party narrative.

This is not an independently thinking person; this is a party hack.

Clarence Thomas started the conga line of party hacks into the Supreme Court. And if you don't get that the last three "Federalist Society" justices were bought and paid for, I don't know what to tell you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

BS. Democrats slammed Barrett based on her personal religious beliefs. It was disgraceful.

Because she wants to impose her personal religious beliefs on to the population of the US. THAT is disgraceful.

If she doesn't believe in abortions, then she shouldn't have one. But neither she, nor anyone else, should have the right to deny the same to any woman who wants or needs one.

[Anonymous]

All I can think of while watching Lindsay Graham berate her, and she stays calm as a cucumber, is that little b i t c h Kavanaugh and his temper tantrum.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

In a binary world or straight white males and subservient white women and subservient people of color, there is all sort of wrong with her answer.

[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.

No one can see it because there is no light sentencing. It is the norm for judges to sentence beneath the guidelines. Aren't you listening?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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

Personal animosity? LMAO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I can think of while watching Lindsay Graham berate her, and she stays calm as a cucumber, is that little b i t c h Kavanaugh and his temper tantrum.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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?

Who’s punishing her? She’s being treated the way nominees are always treated. Why should she be given the kid-glove treatment?

Not letting her speak when a question is asked is unprofessional. Yelling at her because you don't agree with her is unprofessional.

She will be confirmed. That is a fact. Putting her under duress because of it is a punishment.

If it was wrong for Barrett (and Kavanaugh), and I'm sure you would argue that it was, it is wrong from Jackson.

The fact that it was done before doesn't make it right.

[Anonymous]

All I can think of while watching Lindsay Graham berate her, and she stays calm as a cucumber, is that little b i t c h Kavanaugh and his temper tantrum.

OMG same. They simply can't stand a powerful black woman. They can't. It messes with their ego in a way they can't even explain, and threatens their manhood for some strange reason.
I'd really hate to be an old white guy right now. Because American can't stand them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

BS. Democrats slammed Barrett based on her personal religious beliefs. It was disgraceful.

ACB was selected by Trump--who repeatedly said he would work to get RvW overturned--in large part because of the likelihood of her voting to overturn RvW. That likelihood is based, in part, on her degree of religiosity. Most of my family and my husband's family are Catholic, so this is not a knock on Catholics. But there are degrees to someone's religiosity and it is hard to imagine how someone who believes to their core that abortion is a sin can ever be impartial on the matter. Ideally, all SC judges would be non-religious, but that's not going to happen in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

BS. Democrats slammed Barrett based on her personal religious beliefs. It was disgraceful.

ACB was selected by Trump--who repeatedly said he would work to get RvW overturned--in large part because of the likelihood of her voting to overturn RvW. That likelihood is based, in part, on her degree of religiosity. Most of my family and my husband's family are Catholic, so this is not a knock on Catholics. But there are degrees to someone's religiosity and it is hard to imagine how someone who believes to their core that abortion is a sin can ever be impartial on the matter. Ideally, all SC judges would be non-religious, but that's not going to happen in this country.

DP. I was just going to say the same. In ACB's case, her strong religious views absolutely were fair game on the issue of abortion because any abortion case that comes before her would need to be based on the law, not her religion. And for most Catholics, it's not enough to personally believe that abortion is a sin. It cannot be allowed for anyone at any time under any circumstances. There is no gray area for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

BS. Democrats slammed Barrett based on her personal religious beliefs. It was disgraceful.

No, it was relevant. She’s in a cult. That’s a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

BS. Democrats slammed Barrett based on her personal religious beliefs. It was disgraceful.

No, it was relevant. She’s in a cult. That’s a fact.

What cult? Catholicism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

BS. Democrats slammed Barrett based on her personal religious beliefs. It was disgraceful.

ACB was selected by Trump--who repeatedly said he would work to get RvW overturned--in large part because of the likelihood of her voting to overturn RvW. That likelihood is based, in part, on her degree of religiosity. Most of my family and my husband's family are Catholic, so this is not a knock on Catholics. But there are degrees to someone's religiosity and it is hard to imagine how someone who believes to their core that abortion is a sin can ever be impartial on the matter. Ideally, all SC judges would be non-religious, but that's not going to happen in this country.

DP. I was just going to say the same. In ACB's case, her strong religious views absolutely were fair game on the issue of abortion because any abortion case that comes before her would need to be based on the law, not her religion. And for most Catholics, it's not enough to personally believe that abortion is a sin. It cannot be allowed for anyone at any time under any circumstances. There is no gray area for them.

+2. And we know now that she lied. She never had ANY intention of adhering to stare decisis or the law of the last 40 years. She is substituting her personal beliefs, which in her case cannot be extricated from her judicial philosophy. She's a lying a-hole.