Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearing

[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.

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

Biden starting out stating he would only consider a black woman. Liberals celebrate that. Since race is so important to Liberals, it’s important to know whether she will rule with a blindfold on, or as a Kagan does (strong Latina woman) , as a ‘strong black woman’.

My bad - Sotomayor, not Kagan.

[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.

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

Biden starting out stating he would only consider a black woman. Liberals celebrate that. Since race is so important to Liberals, it’s important to know whether she will rule with a blindfold on, or as a Kagan does (strong Latina woman) , as a ‘strong black woman’.

Race is important. Do you really, truly not understand why a diversity of perspective is important to have? Versus a court of almost all Christian (Catholic, esp.) and mostly white? If you don't get that, then there is no use having this discussion.

She is qualified. Education. Experience. Confirmed twice at the federal level. She is just as qualified as anyone on the court. That being the case, those other factors matter.

[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.

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

Biden starting out stating he would only consider a black woman. Liberals celebrate that. Since race is so important to Liberals, it’s important to know whether she will rule with a blindfold on, or as a Kagan does (strong Latina woman) , as a ‘strong black woman’.

Race is important. Do you really, truly not understand why a diversity of perspective is important to have? Versus a court of almost all Christian (Catholic, esp.) and mostly white? If you don't get that, then there is no use having this discussion.

She is qualified. Education. Experience. Confirmed twice at the federal level. She is just as qualified as anyone on the court. That being the case, those other factors matter.

DP. The flaw in your logic is that you are assuming we all have the same goals of a fair and just society. For some people, the goal is to ensure the dominance of white, Christian, cishet men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t know what a woman is:
You can’t speak about women's rights
You can’t speak about women bodies
You can’t speak about women’s healthcare
You can’t speak about women’s salaries
You can’t speak about women’s representation

I’ve been told all those things…so it stands to reason if you can’t even define what a woman is you can’t speak about what women need or don’t need

This thread has officially jumped the shark. The stupid is so thick.

Iconically I was almost directly quoting a liberals…so glad to see you’re seeing how thick they are.

Still stands…you can’t define what a woman is you can’t certainly be in favor of their “rights”

The majority of Americans support her confirmation, so clearly we don’t find your nonsense compelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Biden starting out stating he would only consider a black woman. Liberals celebrate that. Since race is so important to Liberals, it’s important to know whether she will rule with a blindfold on, or as a Kagan does (strong Latina woman) , as a ‘strong black woman’.

Race is important. Do you really, truly not understand why a diversity of perspective is important to have? Versus a court of almost all Christian (Catholic, esp.) and mostly white? If you don't get that, then there is no use having this discussion.

She is qualified. Education. Experience. Confirmed twice at the federal level. She is just as qualified as anyone on the court. That being the case, those other factors matter.

DP. The flaw in your logic is that you are assuming we all have the same goals of a fair and just society. For some people, the goal is to ensure the dominance of white, Christian, cishet men.

This. The PP before this post proved exactly that!

[Anonymous]

This hearing proves how hard women of color have to work to get the basic minimum respect they deserve for their professional career. They have to constantly assuage the white male ego to be heard even for 1/10th of the time they should because the white males have grabbed the helm of power and not ready to give up an inch! Disgusting and yet is the reality!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

And were they asked about being white?

One was grilled mercilessly about her religion and the other about high school and beer. Democrats set the standard for ridiculous questions.

Seriously. I think folks missed the circus of the Kavanaugh and Thomas hearings. https://www.npr.org/2018/09/08/645497667/the-resistance-at-the-kavanaugh-hearings-more-than-200-arrests.

All things considered though about KBJ, she attend Harvard Law School, she clerked at SCOTUS, and she repeatedly answered questions saying she would wait to hear arguments before formulating an opinion. She might actually be great. As much as a dem nominee could be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

And were they asked about being white?

One was grilled mercilessly about her religion and the other about high school and beer. Democrats set the standard for ridiculous questions.

Seriously. I think folks missed the circus of the Kavanaugh and Thomas hearings. https://www.npr.org/2018/09/08/645497667/the-resistance-at-the-kavanaugh-hearings-more-than-200-arrests.

All things considered though about KBJ, she attend Harvard Law School, she clerked at SCOTUS, and she repeatedly answered questions saying she would wait to hear arguments before formulating an opinion. She might actually be great. As much as a dem nominee could be.

If a person shows up that was held down and groped by the nominee while a friend looked on and enjoyed it, we will see a lot of protests.

But this nominee looks to have high quality character and integrity.

[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.

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

Biden starting out stating he would only consider a black woman. Liberals celebrate that. Since race is so important to Liberals, it’s important to know whether she will rule with a blindfold on, or as a Kagan does (strong Latina woman) , as a ‘strong black woman’.

Race is important. Do you really, truly not understand why a diversity of perspective is important to have? Versus a court of almost all Christian (Catholic, esp.) and mostly white? If you don't get that, then there is no use having this discussion.

She is qualified. Education. Experience. Confirmed twice at the federal level. She is just as qualified as anyone on the court. That being the case, those other factors matter.

Justice is blind. Supposed to be anyway. So no, diversity should have nothing to do with it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Biden starting out stating he would only consider a black woman. Liberals celebrate that. Since race is so important to Liberals, it’s important to know whether she will rule with a blindfold on, or as a Kagan does (strong Latina woman) , as a ‘strong black woman’.

Race is important. Do you really, truly not understand why a diversity of perspective is important to have? Versus a court of almost all Christian (Catholic, esp.) and mostly white? If you don't get that, then there is no use having this discussion.

She is qualified. Education. Experience. Confirmed twice at the federal level. She is just as qualified as anyone on the court. That being the case, those other factors matter.

Justice is blind. Supposed to be anyway. So no, diversity should have nothing to do with it

If you ignore her race and gender, KBJ is an exceptionally qualified SCOTUS nominee. For some reason, when her race and/or gender is factored in, she becomes objectionable to certain people. That is the problem, not her qualifications.

[Anonymous]

I had an interesting conversation with a friend last night. She's a member of the Federalist Society. She said a lot of Fed Soc members actually support Jackson - they like her views on a constrained executive and on the 9th Amendment, among other things - but they just aren't really speaking up about it much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had an interesting conversation with a friend last night. She's a member of the Federalist Society. She said a lot of Fed Soc members actually support Jackson - they like her views on a constrained executive and on the 9th Amendment, among other things - but they just aren't really speaking up about it much.

Frankly, that’s pretty shitty of them. If they support her nomination, they should say that. It might actually help to rein in some of the lunatic friends on the right. To sit back and do nothing because they don’t want to support someone nominated by a Dem is craven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Biden starting out stating he would only consider a black woman. Liberals celebrate that. Since race is so important to Liberals, it’s important to know whether she will rule with a blindfold on, or as a Kagan does (strong Latina woman) , as a ‘strong black woman’.

Race is important. Do you really, truly not understand why a diversity of perspective is important to have? Versus a court of almost all Christian (Catholic, esp.) and mostly white? If you don't get that, then there is no use having this discussion.

She is qualified. Education. Experience. Confirmed twice at the federal level. She is just as qualified as anyone on the court. That being the case, those other factors matter.

Justice is blind. Supposed to be anyway. So no, diversity should have nothing to do with it

The Republican Party of 2022 is indistinguishable from the John Birch Society of 1962.
If you ignore her race and gender, KBJ is an exceptionally qualified SCOTUS nominee. For some reason, when her race and/or gender is factored in, she becomes objectionable to certain people. That is the problem, not her qualifications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I had an interesting conversation with a friend last night. She's a member of the Federalist Society. She said a lot of Fed Soc members actually support Jackson - they like her views on a constrained executive and on the 9th Amendment, among other things - but they just aren't really speaking up about it much.

Frankly, that’s pretty shitty of them. If they support her nomination, they should say that. It might actually help to rein in some of the lunatic friends on the right. To sit back and do nothing because they don’t want to support someone nominated by a Dem is craven.

I said that to her. She said some of them are speaking out in favor. But she said generally the Fed Soc is really just falling on its a** when it comes to messaging and comms. They've been so hands off about what members say that the loudest voices - the craziest, MAGA voices - get all the attention, and then seem to represent the entirety of the group. She said it's very frustrating. Anyway, yes - you're right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

Biden starting out stating he would only consider a black woman. Liberals celebrate that. Since race is so important to Liberals, it’s important to know whether she will rule with a blindfold on, or as a Kagan does (strong Latina woman) , as a ‘strong black woman’.

Race is important. Do you really, truly not understand why a diversity of perspective is important to have? Versus a court of almost all Christian (Catholic, esp.) and mostly white? If you don't get that, then there is no use having this discussion.

She is qualified. Education. Experience. Confirmed twice at the federal level. She is just as qualified as anyone on the court. That being the case, those other factors matter.

Justice is blind. Supposed to be anyway. So no, diversity should have nothing to do with it

Sadly, we know that justice is not blind. Every single one of those justices brought their biases to the bench.