Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How was she not "properly vetted"? There is NOTHING remotely disqualifying in either her personal or professional history. My husband and I, both lawyers, watched parts of her hearing and were very impressed by her knowledge and her poise.

She is as qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice as any other current or past Justice.

1. She’s a Democrat.
2. She’s Black.
3. She’s a woman.

These are three disqualifying factors to racist, sexist White Republicans. That she’s smart and qualified means nothing.

+1000. I am a layman (not legal profession) and I watched the last three confirmation hearings (including the latest). KBJ gave the best performance, had the best poise, showed the best command of the legal profession. Kavannaugh was a total embarrassment to not only SCOTUS but also for the whole legal profession.
The racist quality of GOP was on full display during the latest hearing, bar Senator Sasse. The racists know they can’t have the control of the society anymore and they are thrashing in their last gulps of air. IMHO GOP is a party destined to demise as for what it stands for.

+1

The GOP is so vile. Why would anyone vote for those racists?

So that those of a limited sort do not allow the United States to go down the tubes. Without Republicans, you would be walk to the Canadian border ahead of Russian tanks

Yes, where would this country be without the racists and fascists and fraudsters of the GOP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So a person of color should get a lighter sentence because of his/her background, if it was poor?

Hey kid, don’t venture into discussions that are far above your intellectual level. Confine yourself to your level of intelligence, which is at ground zero as it stands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP. The flaw in your logic is that Judge Jackson is representative of the black community. I admire her and believe firmly that she will be approved and make an excellent justice. Like many well educated and well employed professionals she stands apart from many black people. Once people get to a certain level, their skin color matters little -- in her case, the Senators are just using it for political theater. Jackson and the other justices may be from a particular ethnic group but to say they represent those ethnic groups is ridiculous. Just like Senators do not represent their constituents' best interests.

Do you hear yourself? She isn’t representative of the black community because she is educated and “well employed”? Is that really what you meant to say? You may want to take your hood off when you are typing, it making you type some racist nonsense.

+1 holy Moses, PP. go back to Stormfront or wherever the GOP is hanging out online.

[Anonymous]

When your insidious questioning about child p*rn is too much for this guy…

[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.

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.

DP. The flaw in your logic is that Judge Jackson is representative of the black community. I admire her and believe firmly that she will be approved and make an excellent justice. Like many well educated and well employed professionals she stands apart from many black people. Once people get to a certain level, their skin color matters little -- in her case, the Senators are just using it for political theater. Jackson and the other justices may be from a particular ethnic group but to say they represent those ethnic groups is ridiculous. Just like Senators do not represent their constituents' best interests.

Your argument is not responsive to the prior post. That said, the fundamental flaw in your argument is the assumption that KBJ has to be representative of the entire black community. The black community is not a monolith, of course there will be lots of differences in backgrounds, experiences, beliefs, values, etc. No one person could possibly represent all of them. That’s one of the reasons why the comments from certain people on the right that KBJ checks the black woman box and so the next nominee had to check a different box are so stupid. KBJ would bring a different perspective than the white justices, but another black woman would also bring different perspectives from KBJ. Confirming KBJ to the court would in no way mean no other black women should be considered for a future vacancy while she is on the court

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP. The flaw in your logic is that Judge Jackson is representative of the black community. I admire her and believe firmly that she will be approved and make an excellent justice. Like many well educated and well employed professionals she stands apart from many black people. Once people get to a certain level, their skin color matters little -- in her case, the Senators are just using it for political theater. Jackson and the other justices may be from a particular ethnic group but to say they represent those ethnic groups is ridiculous. Just like Senators do not represent their constituents' best interests.

Your argument is not responsive to the prior post. That said, the fundamental flaw in your argument is the assumption that KBJ has to be representative of the entire black community. The black community is not a monolith, of course there will be lots of differences in backgrounds, experiences, beliefs, values, etc. No one person could possibly represent all of them. That’s one of the reasons why the comments from certain people on the right that KBJ checks the black woman box and so the next nominee had to check a different box are so stupid. KBJ would bring a different perspective than the white justices, but another black woman would also bring different perspectives from KBJ. Confirming KBJ to the court would in no way mean no other black women should be considered for a future vacancy while she is on the court

Is Clarence Thomas a representive of the "black community". The "black community" is not monolithic and does not consistantly support the liberal agenda!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP. The flaw in your logic is that Judge Jackson is representative of the black community. I admire her and believe firmly that she will be approved and make an excellent justice. Like many well educated and well employed professionals she stands apart from many black people. Once people get to a certain level, their skin color matters little -- in her case, the Senators are just using it for political theater. Jackson and the other justices may be from a particular ethnic group but to say they represent those ethnic groups is ridiculous. Just like Senators do not represent their constituents' best interests.

Your argument is not responsive to the prior post. That said, the fundamental flaw in your argument is the assumption that KBJ has to be representative of the entire black community. The black community is not a monolith, of course there will be lots of differences in backgrounds, experiences, beliefs, values, etc. No one person could possibly represent all of them. That’s one of the reasons why the comments from certain people on the right that KBJ checks the black woman box and so the next nominee had to check a different box are so stupid. KBJ would bring a different perspective than the white justices, but another black woman would also bring different perspectives from KBJ. Confirming KBJ to the court would in no way mean no other black women should be considered for a future vacancy while she is on the court

I don't think anyone has suggested this is the case, only that it is highly unlikely a Black woman will be considered for the next opening or two. Demographic considerations are a political reality, and there are still "firsts" remaining: first Asian, American Indian justice etc.

[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.

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.

DP. The flaw in your logic is that Judge Jackson is representative of the black community. I admire her and believe firmly that she will be approved and make an excellent justice. Like many well educated and well employed professionals she stands apart from many black people. Once people get to a certain level, their skin color matters little -- in her case, the Senators are just using it for political theater. Jackson and the other justices may be from a particular ethnic group but to say they represent those ethnic groups is ridiculous. Just like Senators do not represent their constituents' best interests.

You sound like someone who has had few — if any — genuine conversations with actual Black people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So a person of color should get a lighter sentence because of his/her background, if it was poor?

If you can cogently lay out how you got to your conclusion that starts with “So”, I’ll be happy to address it seriously. This reads like you plopped it down from the short list of comments that Tucker Carlson uses when he makes that faux-bewildered constipated looking frowny face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP. The flaw in your logic is that Judge Jackson is representative of the black community. I admire her and believe firmly that she will be approved and make an excellent justice. Like many well educated and well employed professionals she stands apart from many black people. Once people get to a certain level, their skin color matters little -- in her case, the Senators are just using it for political theater. Jackson and the other justices may be from a particular ethnic group but to say they represent those ethnic groups is ridiculous. Just like Senators do not represent their constituents' best interests.

Your argument is not responsive to the prior post. That said, the fundamental flaw in your argument is the assumption that KBJ has to be representative of the entire black community. The black community is not a monolith, of course there will be lots of differences in backgrounds, experiences, beliefs, values, etc. No one person could possibly represent all of them. That’s one of the reasons why the comments from certain people on the right that KBJ checks the black woman box and so the next nominee had to check a different box are so stupid. KBJ would bring a different perspective than the white justices, but another black woman would also bring different perspectives from KBJ. Confirming KBJ to the court would in no way mean no other black women should be considered for a future vacancy while she is on the court

Is Clarence Thomas a representive of the "black community". The "black community" is not monolithic and does not consistantly support the liberal agenda!

I never said he was?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP. The flaw in your logic is that Judge Jackson is representative of the black community. I admire her and believe firmly that she will be approved and make an excellent justice. Like many well educated and well employed professionals she stands apart from many black people. Once people get to a certain level, their skin color matters little -- in her case, the Senators are just using it for political theater. Jackson and the other justices may be from a particular ethnic group but to say they represent those ethnic groups is ridiculous. Just like Senators do not represent their constituents' best interests.

Your argument is not responsive to the prior post. That said, the fundamental flaw in your argument is the assumption that KBJ has to be representative of the entire black community. The black community is not a monolith, of course there will be lots of differences in backgrounds, experiences, beliefs, values, etc. No one person could possibly represent all of them. That’s one of the reasons why the comments from certain people on the right that KBJ checks the black woman box and so the next nominee had to check a different box are so stupid. KBJ would bring a different perspective than the white justices, but another black woman would also bring different perspectives from KBJ. Confirming KBJ to the court would in no way mean no other black women should be considered for a future vacancy while she is on the court

I don't think anyone has suggested this is the case, only that it is highly unlikely a Black woman will be considered for the next opening or two. Demographic considerations are a political reality, and there are still "firsts" remaining: first Asian, American Indian justice etc.

I think if Clarence Thomas retires/dies, he will be replaced with an AA woman or man. So, I do think an AA female nominee is quite likely. Perhaps Leondra Kruger who is AA and Jewish and could give RBG the replacement that she deserved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP. The flaw in your logic is that Judge Jackson is representative of the black community. I admire her and believe firmly that she will be approved and make an excellent justice. Like many well educated and well employed professionals she stands apart from many black people. Once people get to a certain level, their skin color matters little -- in her case, the Senators are just using it for political theater. Jackson and the other justices may be from a particular ethnic group but to say they represent those ethnic groups is ridiculous. Just like Senators do not represent their constituents' best interests.

Your argument is not responsive to the prior post. That said, the fundamental flaw in your argument is the assumption that KBJ has to be representative of the entire black community. The black community is not a monolith, of course there will be lots of differences in backgrounds, experiences, beliefs, values, etc. No one person could possibly represent all of them. That’s one of the reasons why the comments from certain people on the right that KBJ checks the black woman box and so the next nominee had to check a different box are so stupid. KBJ would bring a different perspective than the white justices, but another black woman would also bring different perspectives from KBJ. Confirming KBJ to the court would in no way mean no other black women should be considered for a future vacancy while she is on the court

I don't think anyone has suggested this is the case, only that it is highly unlikely a Black woman will be considered for the next opening or two. Demographic considerations are a political reality, and there are still "firsts" remaining: first Asian, American Indian justice etc.

I think if Clarence Thomas retires/dies, he will be replaced with an AA woman or man. So, I do think an AA female nominee is quite likely. Perhaps Leondra Kruger who is AA and Jewish and could give RBG the replacement that she deserved.

I'm rooting for Michelle Childs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP. The flaw in your logic is that Judge Jackson is representative of the black community. I admire her and believe firmly that she will be approved and make an excellent justice. Like many well educated and well employed professionals she stands apart from many black people. Once people get to a certain level, their skin color matters little -- in her case, the Senators are just using it for political theater. Jackson and the other justices may be from a particular ethnic group but to say they represent those ethnic groups is ridiculous. Just like Senators do not represent their constituents' best interests.

Your argument is not responsive to the prior post. That said, the fundamental flaw in your argument is the assumption that KBJ has to be representative of the entire black community. The black community is not a monolith, of course there will be lots of differences in backgrounds, experiences, beliefs, values, etc. No one person could possibly represent all of them. That’s one of the reasons why the comments from certain people on the right that KBJ checks the black woman box and so the next nominee had to check a different box are so stupid. KBJ would bring a different perspective than the white justices, but another black woman would also bring different perspectives from KBJ. Confirming KBJ to the court would in no way mean no other black women should be considered for a future vacancy while she is on the court

I don't think anyone has suggested this is the case, only that it is highly unlikely a Black woman will be considered for the next opening or two. Demographic considerations are a political reality, and there are still "firsts" remaining: first Asian, American Indian justice etc.

I think if Clarence Thomas retires/dies, he will be replaced with an AA woman or man. So, I do think an AA female nominee is quite likely. Perhaps Leondra Kruger who is AA and Jewish and could give RBG the replacement that she deserved.

I'm rooting for Michelle Childs.

+1 Lindsey Graham sure seemed to like her.

[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.

So they were not asked about being white.

BK has issues. His face looks like that of a drunkard. He was able to act out and have a temper tantrum, because he’s a white man. He doesn’t have a good and even temperament. A Supreme Court judge should do better.

AB and KJB do not have the luxury of being able to tantrum.

Hopefully, we’ll have additional qualified people added to the court in the future.

Fairly certain that if either ACB or KJB were falsely accused of sexual assault, and then grilled about it during their hearings, they too would get emotional and angry. With good reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP. The flaw in your logic is that Judge Jackson is representative of the black community. I admire her and believe firmly that she will be approved and make an excellent justice. Like many well educated and well employed professionals she stands apart from many black people. Once people get to a certain level, their skin color matters little -- in her case, the Senators are just using it for political theater. Jackson and the other justices may be from a particular ethnic group but to say they represent those ethnic groups is ridiculous. Just like Senators do not represent their constituents' best interests.

Your argument is not responsive to the prior post. That said, the fundamental flaw in your argument is the assumption that KBJ has to be representative of the entire black community. The black community is not a monolith, of course there will be lots of differences in backgrounds, experiences, beliefs, values, etc. No one person could possibly represent all of them. That’s one of the reasons why the comments from certain people on the right that KBJ checks the black woman box and so the next nominee had to check a different box are so stupid. KBJ would bring a different perspective than the white justices, but another black woman would also bring different perspectives from KBJ. Confirming KBJ to the court would in no way mean no other black women should be considered for a future vacancy while she is on the court

I don't think anyone has suggested this is the case, only that it is highly unlikely a Black woman will be considered for the next opening or two. Demographic considerations are a political reality, and there are still "firsts" remaining: first Asian, American Indian justice etc.

I think if Clarence Thomas retires/dies, he will be replaced with an AA woman or man. So, I do think an AA female nominee is quite likely. Perhaps Leondra Kruger who is AA and Jewish and could give RBG the replacement that she deserved.

No, time to appeal to Asians, who are increasingly fed up with Dem focus on affirmative action/restorative justice, which many perceive to be at the expense of their kids' opportunities.