Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearing

[Anonymous]

We cannot educate kids about gender issues without prudent Jurists like Judge Jackson.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The hypocrites here find fault with Judge Jackson sending her kids to GDS. what about you? How many of you live in D.C. and send your kids to public schools, especially if you have HHI similar to that of a successful surgeon and Federal Judge couple?

This, for sure. When your mom is a judge that went to Harvard and your dad is a surgeon that went to Harvard and Columbia - where on earth do you think those kids go to school, regardless of race or political association? For the most part, it’s not Wilson.

Yah, but she is a Black woman - regardless of the education, wealth etc... how can she behave like the White men and woman?

.

Please if I had the money you better believe I’d send my kid to a prep school. No hate for her or Obama. It’s not like she’s the governor of Virginia pretending to be a man of the people in his stupid fleece. I have a problem with him sending his kids to private. He’s an elitist jerk though so it’s to be expected.

Ah, there it is! I was finding it so curious that those of you who have a problem with Gov. Youngkin sending his kids to private schools don't seem to be concerned at all that Jackson sends hers to private as well. I'd just love to know why one of these people bothers you in his choice of private schools, but the other doesn't. Can't wait to hear your pretzel-twisting "logic". I'll grab my fleece and some popcorn and wait for you to concoct something. Make it good!
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sort of wish they wouldn't televise these hearings. Perhaps politicians would actually ask questions instead of waxing poetic and grandstanding.

Oh, the irony.

Irony is a Republican Senator saying the same exact thing today.

Now tell us about Sen. Whitehouse and his yearbook presentation. That was the very epitome of grandstanding. Right?

[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

Were Kavanaugh and Barrett questioned about the curriculum of where their kids went to school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sort of wish they wouldn't televise these hearings. Perhaps politicians would actually ask questions instead of waxing poetic and grandstanding.

Oh, the irony.

Irony is a Republican Senator saying the same exact thing today.

Now tell us about Sen. Whitehouse and his yearbook presentation. That was the very epitome of grandstanding. Right?

No, it was getting a guy under oath to lie. Which he did, repeatedly. And you still love him.

[Anonymous]

I can't really watch these hearings on either side any more. They are dumb partisan exercises that achieve nothing.

[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.

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.

DP. I agree. Every time Booker opens his mouth, it's clear he is pretending to be on a Broadway stage, emoting to within an inch of his life. It's beyond cringeworthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

And the Dems asked Kavanaugh about high school (???) and beer. You certainly don't have the moral high ground here.

[Anonymous]

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.

+1 Why on earth was she asked about the 1619 Project?

[Anonymous]

Her dodgy non answers indicate open mindedness. She says she would like to hear argument. She might be the Roberts of the left.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't really watch these hearings on either side any more. They are dumb partisan exercises that achieve nothing.

I agree completely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sort of wish they wouldn't televise these hearings. Perhaps politicians would actually ask questions instead of waxing poetic and grandstanding.

Oh, the irony.

Irony is a Republican Senator saying the same exact thing today.

Now tell us about Sen. Whitehouse and his yearbook presentation. That was the very epitome of grandstanding. Right?

No, it was getting a guy under oath to lie. Which he did, repeatedly. And you still love him.

#BKFanGirl4Life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ive never had a form ask me if I am woman or man because that's a social construct but I have had forms ask me if I am female or male.

And law should follow the arguments and science is evolving in our understanding of chromosomes- it is not just X or Y. There is also the SRY gene and some people have partials. There is also evidence that sex-determination is not so cut and dry at say week 7. And there are also multiple syndromes and mutations that result in something other than the binary terms we associate with sex https://novonordiskfonden.dk/en/news/more-women-than-expected-are-genetically-men/

This is what Judge Jackson means. She needs the arguments in front of her to make a ruling. She should not be asked about her personal beliefs or definitions- the caveat being opinions on these items that she has expressed socially or personally in non-private arenas. Example would be giving a talk about gender and her musings on it to a pro/anti-group. Thats fair game but asking her to define "terms" that are being used in the political arena is just grandstanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sort of wish they wouldn't televise these hearings. Perhaps politicians would actually ask questions instead of waxing poetic and grandstanding.

Oh, the irony.

Irony is a Republican Senator saying the same exact thing today.

Now tell us about Sen. Whitehouse and his yearbook presentation. That was the very epitome of grandstanding. Right?

No, it was getting a guy under oath to lie. Which he did, repeatedly. And you still love him.

You're a twit, just like the guy you apparently love - Whitehouse. He made an utter ass of himself, yet you're defending the depths to which he sank. Grandstanding is an understatement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

And has she tried to prevent any woman from having an abortion? Nope. She also said that Roe v Wade is established precedent. So you can STFU with your lies and gaslighting.
DP

Have you paid any attention to the Texas abortion case? She has prevented every woman in Texas from getting an abortion after 6 weeks by letting Texas keep its ban in place.

You've conveniently moved the goalposts. How typical.