Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmation hearing

[Anonymous]

Surely the intent of the 14th amendment was not a bro Marxist notion of “equity”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is a joke. Equal protection does. It mean equity.

It just kills your to have a black woman on SCOTUS. And one who wears braids at that.

I love Clarence Thomas; my objections go to her judicial philosophy and intellect.

Stop dividing with race. It’s tired and tedious and it doesn’t help anybody except professional race hustlers.

Lol but you have no problem with Thomas or ACB, two unspectacular intellects.

You have a problem with KJB’s liberalism. That is it. I assume you will say the same thing for Kagan and Sotomayor?

Guess what - millions have objections with the extreme conservatism of 6 members of the court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is a joke. Equal protection does. It mean equity.

It just kills your to have a black woman on SCOTUS. And one who wears braids at that.

I love Clarence Thomas; my objections go to her judicial philosophy and intellect.

Stop dividing with race. It’s tired and tedious and it doesn’t help anybody except professional race hustlers.

Lol but you have no problem with Thomas or ACB, two unspectacular intellects.

You have a problem with KJB’s liberalism. That is it. I assume you will say the same thing for Kagan and Sotomayor?

Guess what - millions have objections with the extreme conservatism of 6 members of the court.

Yes, I do have a problem with her liberalism! Bingo! Her race I don’t care about, and certainly not her hairstyle like some PP fantasized about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Surely the intent of the 14th amendment was not a bro Marxist notion of “equity”

Stunning argument. Very persuasive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surely the intent of the 14th amendment was not a bro Marxist notion of “equity”

Stunning argument. Very persuasive.

It’s not stunning argument it is stunningly obvious to all except for jurist KBJ

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is a joke. Equal protection does. It mean equity.

It just kills your to have a black woman on SCOTUS. And one who wears braids at that.

RACE RACE RACE BIGOT BIGOT BIGOT

Can you guys at least TRY to say something intelligent?

If it wasn't for race, there is no way you would question this woman's intellect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is a joke. Equal protection does. It mean equity.

It just kills your to have a black woman on SCOTUS. And one who wears braids at that.

I love Clarence Thomas; my objections go to her judicial philosophy and intellect.

Stop dividing with race. It’s tired and tedious and it doesn’t help anybody except professional race hustlers.

Her intellect? Hahahahaha. You say this and that you love Clarence Thomas - who clearly did not get to the SC based on intellect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is a joke. Equal protection does. It mean equity.

It just kills your to have a black woman on SCOTUS. And one who wears braids at that.

I love Clarence Thomas; my objections go to her judicial philosophy and intellect.

Stop dividing with race. It’s tired and tedious and it doesn’t help anybody except professional race hustlers.

Clarence Thomas and intellect do not belong in the same zip code.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is a joke. Equal protection does. It mean equity.

It just kills your to have a black woman on SCOTUS. And one who wears braids at that.

I love Clarence Thomas; my objections go to her judicial philosophy and intellect.

Stop dividing with race. It’s tired and tedious and it doesn’t help anybody except professional race hustlers.

Lol but you have no problem with Thomas or ACB, two unspectacular intellects.

You have a problem with KJB’s liberalism. That is it. I assume you will say the same thing for Kagan and Sotomayor?

Guess what - millions have objections with the extreme conservatism of 6 members of the court.

Yes, I do have a problem with her liberalism! Bingo! Her race I don’t care about, and certainly not her hairstyle like some PP fantasized about.

How often did you complain about Breyer? Kagan? RBG? Be honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Her arguments and intellect are prime examples of why it's so important to have a diverse group of individuals on the Supreme Court. We are stronger when there's a variety of ideas and viewpoints.

+1

Obviously she wasn’t trying to do so, but she showed up the threadbare arguments and total lack of honor of the six white supremacist justices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is a joke. Equal protection does. It mean equity.

It just kills your to have a black woman on SCOTUS. And one who wears braids at that.

I love Clarence Thomas; my objections go to her judicial philosophy and intellect.

Stop dividing with race. It’s tired and tedious and it doesn’t help anybody except professional race hustlers.

Tell us why you love Thomas because I can find absolutely no redeeming in him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This woman is a joke. Equal protection does. It mean equity.

It just kills your to have a black woman on SCOTUS. And one who wears braids at that.

I love Clarence Thomas; my objections go to her judicial philosophy and intellect.

Stop dividing with race. It’s tired and tedious and it doesn’t help anybody except professional race hustlers.

Tell us why you love Thomas because I can find absolutely no redeeming in him.

DP. He's so quiet, rarely asking questions, sometimes seeming to look almost as if he were napping, that he's a dark horse. Totally unpredictable, or at least unpredictable about when he might act awake and ask a question during oral argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Surely the intent of the 14th amendment was not a bro Marxist notion of “equity”

It certainly wasn’t for Alabama to gerrymander Congressional districts to intentionally marginalize almost all its black residents into one district, so the other districts don’t have to give a shit about Blacks in Alabama. The intent of the 14th Amendment was that the Confederacy lost and their racist states rights bullshit is over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surely the intent of the 14th amendment was not a bro Marxist notion of “equity”

It certainly wasn’t for Alabama to gerrymander Congressional districts to intentionally marginalize almost all its black residents into one district, so the other districts don’t have to give a shit about Blacks in Alabama. The intent of the 14th Amendment was that the Confederacy lost and their racist states rights bullshit is over.

+1

For a party that gets its panties in a twist over being called racist, your religious tribunal members sure act racist.