Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearing

[Anonymous]

So true

[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’.

What does any of this incorrect drivel have to with the 1619 Project?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So true

The only part that is remotely true is Grassley’s team being busy on PACER because they didn’t bother to prepare in advance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So true

You should hear what that guy had to say about Republicans going full bore attacking Jackson. It could also become true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So true

It will be blatant proof of systemic racism by whites if she isn’t put on the court.

Anyway, what is pacer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So true

It will be blatant proof of systemic racism by whites if she isn’t put on the court.

Anyway, what is pacer?

DP. Public Access to Court Electronic Records. It’s the (for-pay) online access to federal court dockets and filings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So true

It will be blatant proof of systemic racism by whites if she isn’t put on the court.

Anyway, what is pacer?

Public Access to Court Electronic Records, the system that Federal Courts use for people to access documents. It means Grassley's team was looking over the records of cases she's heard as a judge (not sure why they wouldn't have finished that before the third day of hearing)

[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.

I'm sure if Jackson had any alleged misadventures we'd be hearing all about it.

[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.

I'm sure if Jackson had any alleged misadventures we'd be hearing all about it.

Exactly. Instead, the best they can do is talk about a book that hurts Ted Cruz's fee-fees being taught at a school she's on the board of, and bleat incoherently about pedophiles.

[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 everyone on the Court is the same or close to it, justice will def be blind to anything but their own experiences. And that's not a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So true

It will be blatant proof of systemic racism by whites if she isn’t put on the court.

Anyway, what is pacer?

Public Access to Court Electronic Records, the system that Federal Courts use for people to access documents. It means Grassley's team was looking over the records of cases she's heard as a judge (not sure why they wouldn't have finished that before the third day of hearing)

Isn’t her legal record as a judge supposed to be the main focus of the hearings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So true

It will be blatant proof of systemic racism by whites if she isn’t put on the court.

Anyway, what is pacer?

Public Access to Court Electronic Records, the system that Federal Courts use for people to access documents. It means Grassley's team was looking over the records of cases she's heard as a judge (not sure why they wouldn't have finished that before the third day of hearing)

Isn’t her legal record as a judge supposed to be the main focus of the hearings?

You’d think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So true

It will be blatant proof of systemic racism by whites if she isn’t put on the court.

Anyway, what is pacer?

Public Access to Court Electronic Records, the system that Federal Courts use for people to access documents. It means Grassley's team was looking over the records of cases she's heard as a judge (not sure why they wouldn't have finished that before the third day of hearing)

Isn’t her legal record as a judge supposed to be the main focus of the hearings?

Of course, my point wasn't "they shouldn't review her record" it's that she's been touted as a possibly nominee from the beginning and been the formal nominee for a month, why would you be on PACER on the last day of her testimony? I have no idea if they were looking up her record then or not, but if they were, that seems like sloppiness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So true

It will be blatant proof of systemic racism by whites if she isn’t put on the court.

Anyway, what is pacer?

Public Access to Court Electronic Records, the system that Federal Courts use for people to access documents. It means Grassley's team was looking over the records of cases she's heard as a judge (not sure why they wouldn't have finished that before the third day of hearing)

Isn’t her legal record as a judge supposed to be the main focus of the hearings?

Of course, my point wasn't "they shouldn't review her record" it's that she's been touted as a possibly nominee from the beginning and been the formal nominee for a month, why would you be on PACER on the last day of her testimony? I have no idea if they were looking up her record then or not, but if they were, that seems like sloppiness.

I think you're being too literal. He's saying that Republicans are attacking her on her record as a judge, and she wasn't prepped well enough by the WH to give good answers. I have zero idea if that's a correct observation. She seems great to me.

[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

If everyone on the Court is the same or close to it, justice will def be blind to anything but their own experiences. And that's not a good thing.

Ironically, if the PP studied a little critical race theory she'd understand that there is no such thing as blind justice. Every decision is authored by a person, whose beliefs and understanding of the world are shaped by the life they have experienced - in the body they have experienced. No one is a brain in a jar; we are all embodied minds. And being in these different bodies with these different experiences brings a different richness to how a judicial body will view the cases before it. It's very important to have some people with different life experiences there, because that will bring nuance and get the court away from the group-think that infects any organization with too many people who have had the same life experiences.

We need more diversity on the court - different law schools, too. Not all justices should have been educated at the same institutions. That's leads to group-think too. I'm glad that KBJ was a public defender - that's a perspective that's been lacking on the court.