Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So you're saying she should not be questioned about the same issues Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh were questioned about - because she's black? Interesting.
DP

I'm sorry, should I just continue to ask if you are, in face, a biologist?

[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.

So - Biden, for example. Got it.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yep. I believed Ford 100%. I knew several Brett Kavanaugh's growing up. They were all pathetic, entitled turds. But, even without that, his little tantrum under pressure, claims of conspiracies, etc. ALONE -and by itself- rendered him unfit for the office he holds.

He will forever be a fu---ing disgrace on the bench.

Of course you did. Just because you personally knew some obnoxious boys growing up doesn't mean Brett Kavanaugh was one of them. Sounds like your bitter rancor has simply colored your view of men in general. Get a grip.
DP

[Anonymous]

Meh, I knew the Kavanaugh crowd growing up. He was, in fact, an entitled turd.

-another DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do you think the Republican senators on the senate judiciary committee learn from such a powerful heart rendering speech by Senator Booker? If you think they do, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. I bet they don’t have the intellect to even grasp the meaning of what he spoke.

You would buy that Brooklyn bridge if you believed Booker's BS about sitting with photos of his black and white ancestors and feeling their presence. It was almost as vomit inducing as the mental picture of him soaking in a bathtub of oatmeal. Judge Jackson needs nothing from him. She is 1,000 times better than Booker on his best day. His remarks to her were cringe inducing and patronizing.

[Anonymous]

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.

My self-awareness is just fine. Perhaps in another thread we can discuss just how much fun it is to be a Black woman with a seat at the table. You’re so busy viewing everything through your political lens that you’re missing quite a lot. Carry on though, I’m sure you’re fine with it.

And you're not? You view everything not only through a political lens, but also a racial one. She is a SC nominee - forget about her race. She should be grilled with the same tenacity that other SC nominees were. Unless you're suggesting she receive special treatment due to her race?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans are obsessed with stoking race and culture war divisions. It’s all they talk about. They don’t my even pretend to care about anything else.

Oh, the deep deep irony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The questioning is a straigh up modern lynching.

Most outrageous, idiotic comment of the day. Congrats?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ugh. Guess this is what passes for discourse among GenZ.

Nobody is required to send their kid there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you think the Republican senators on the senate judiciary committee learn from such a powerful heart rendering speech by Senator Booker? If you think they do, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. I bet they don’t have the intellect to even grasp the meaning of what he spoke.

They don’t because none of them actually have a soul.

Oh, good grief. Cory Booker is far too emotional. The man is a clown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't agree with Lindsey Graham on a lot of things, but when he's right, he's right.

Jackson: "On the internet, with one click, you can receive you can distribute TENS OF THOUSANDS (of child pornographic images). You can be doing this for 15 minutes and all of a sudden you are looking at 30, 40, 50 years in prison—"

Graham: "Good! Good! Absolutely right! I hope you would! I hope you go to jail for 50 years if you're on the internet trolling for children in sexual exploitation – see you don't think that's a bad thing, I think that's a horrible thing."

Mic drop Graham. Totally schooled her

All he did was demonstrate he is too dumb to understand the point she made.

And that point would be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans are obsessed with stoking race and culture war divisions. It’s all they talk about. They don’t my even pretend to care about anything else.

Oh, the deep deep irony.

I mean... the highlights of the hearing have been people asking her if she can fairly judge people from other religions, asking her about racist babies, asking her about her gender. So, yeah, PP has a point.

Didn't watch the whole thing, did the Repubs bring up gay marriage yet PP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

She said as board member at GDS she was not aware that they were teaching CRT and is not responsible for setting currriculum. Someone needs to follow up with her and ask her as a board member of GDS now that she has been made aware, what is her opinion on what was being taught at a school where she was on the board?

A) Is GDS a public school? (I don't know the answer to that but, since you're such an expert, I assume you do).
B) CRT is not the same as religiously held beliefs on abortion for Catholics. As another poster explained, and having been raised Catholic, I can tell you that person is correct: There is no gray area on that issue for practicing Catholics.

A) 1. GDS is not a public school 2. The judge was on the board of GDS, I do not know if she still is. 3. Senator Cruz provided compelling evidence that CRT is being taught from a young age at GDS.

The questioning is a hate-crime.

WTF??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that she's not very strong. The fact is, she's telling Senators they can't possibly understand her sentencing, etc. because they don't have the documents she did, yet those documents were somehow (illegally?) obtained by the White House and are being leaked. Since that's going on, Cruz is correct - the Senators should have access to the documents. Durbin keeps interrupting because he covering up.

Holy you know what! You are a stupid you know what.

How about something more substantial. They are stating she relied on those sentencing guidelines so the Senators can't begin to understand why she made the decisions she did. Cruz and 9 other senators asked for those documents, with redactions to protect the victims. Durbin would not say no directly because he didn't want to go on the record as saying that. Instead he stonewalled, interrupted, etc.

If you entertain their stupid request, then every judge who comes before the committee, whether Democratic or Republican nominee, can be subjected to similar questioning and request all court records of which they question the nominee. As Chairman DURBIN said, such sealed records were never asked by anyone in any hearing so far. It certainly a bridge too far. Cruz is an a$$. He thinks he can swing Tumpsters in his favor for his Presidential fantasy dream. What he doesn’t know is that he has already risen to his highest level of incompetency. From here, it is only downhill for him in his political career.

Again, telling Senators they can’t possibly understand but not being willing to show them the documents the democrats clearly have privy to doesn’t fly.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can someone who doesn’t know what a woman is defend women’s rights?

Is this how her forms are filled out when asked to provide her sex?

"Judge Jackson, are you a woman? "

"I'll have to ask my biologist"

So true. It's a simple question.