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?

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very interesting that the party of Dennie Hastert, Alex Acosta, Gym Jordan, Roy Moore, Matt Gaetz, Josh Duggar, Anton Lazzaro, have decided to make child sex cases their focus.

I’d love to hear respond to one of Cruz’s dumb questions by saying: “ Senator Cruz, I want to assure that if your good friend and donor Josh Duggar came before me for sentencing, I would have treated him the same way as I treated these other convicted sex offenders.”

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 s the standard for ridiculous questions.

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?

No one wants to answer this?

I'm still waiting on answer to why liberals are aghast that Youngkin sends his kids to private, but perfectly ok with Jackson doing the same. So curious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans (most not all) have been disgraceful during this hearing. They've made this a waste of time. This hearing has been a weird hazing practice for Justice Jackson.

They’re building their sound bites for their future campaigns. Their base will be thrilled to see their representatives doing —what they will likely view as putting an overly educated uppity Black woman in her place. This public nastiness is a total win for them, and even more so if they can get KBJ to stumble publicly and on camera.

Zero self-awareness. Need we remind you AGAIN about the nastiness Democrats displayed to Barrett and Kavanaugh? Take a seat and maybe review *those* hearings, why don’t you.

My self-awareness is just fine. Perhaps in another thread we can discuss just how much fun it is to be a Black woman with a seat at the table. You’re so busy viewing everything through your political lens that you’re missing quite a lot. Carry on though, I’m sure you’re fine with it.

And you're not? You view everything not only through a political lens, but also a racial one. She is a SC nominee - forget about her race. She should be grilled with the same tenacity that other SC nominees were. Unless you're suggesting she receive special treatment due to her race?

Of course I do, along with a few other lenses. I’m happy to acknowledge that — unlike others who believe that their personal biases are somehow norms. As to the rest— if someone can reasonably show that she’s being grilled “with the same tenacity” that’s at least “fair”, if unfortunate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Just stating facts. Unlike your boy.

No, you want to ignore facts. The facts are, Whitehouse - and other Democrats - were complete d!cks and performative aholes during Kavanagh's hearing. So you whining about tough questions being asked of Jackson just makes it apparent that you're an absurd hypocrite.

He should have answered them without lying.

He should have answered them without crying.

Rethug senators are berating KBJ like mad and she sits there calm and dignified. No yelling and crying and spouting off about how she likes beer.

Lol, she cried like a baby after Booker did his Broadway speech

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans on this thread are pushing me toward voting for Democrats this election. Is this all the GOP has to offer? Mocking a historic and very good nominee? Grandstanding and identity politics and virtue signaling? This is making me want to vote straight Democratic ticket for the first time ever. You guys are making the party look terrible.

I’ll ask again: who is mocking this nominee? We’ll wait.

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.

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?

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?

Anonymous wrote:The Republicans on this thread are pushing me toward voting for Democrats this election. Is this all the GOP has to offer? Mocking a historic and very good nominee? Grandstanding and identity politics and virtue signaling? This is making me want to vote straight Democratic ticket for the first time ever. You guys are making the party look terrible.

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?

No one wants to answer this?

I'm still waiting on answer to why liberals are aghast that Youngkin sends his kids to private, but perfectly ok with Jackson doing the same. So curious.

I'm not "aghast" but the difference is this: Youngkin ran for governor of Virginia and no small part of his campaign was about public school education in Virginia, which his family does not participate in. And yet, he can drive that agenda, appoint board members, etc. And we're seeing a lot of this - people that don't believe in public school education but do believe in a lot of regulation of public school education.

Jackson, like Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett, and others, is an appointed judge that can only rule on matters under her jurisdiction, "matters" usually being interpretations of law, promulgated by the legislative branch of government, that are also brought before her - i.e. - passive.

It's two entirely different things.

As suspected, that's some impressive pretzel-twisting. The Supreme Court absolutely can rule on matters concerning public schools: Plessy v Ferguson?? Brown v Board of Education?? Engel v Vitale?? And so many more. There is NO difference between the governor and a SJC sending their child to private schools as opposed to public. None.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-19/insights-vol-19-issue-2/public-schools-and-us-supreme-court/

You are amusing with your pretzels. Are they tasty?

Segregation and subsequent desegregation of schools - Plessy and Brown - are hardly educational policy, but civil rights.

Very cute to throw a school prayer case in, which is also not in the realm of educational policy or curriculum development.

We get it. You're a 1L at Liberty and this is what they've told you to spit out, but seriously, hush, the grownups are talking.

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?

No one wants to answer this?

I'm still waiting on answer to why liberals are aghast that Youngkin sends his kids to private, but perfectly ok with Jackson doing the same. So curious.

I'm not "aghast" but the difference is this: Youngkin ran for governor of Virginia and no small part of his campaign was about public school education in Virginia, which his family does not participate in. And yet, he can drive that agenda, appoint board members, etc. And we're seeing a lot of this - people that don't believe in public school education but do believe in a lot of regulation of public school education.

Jackson, like Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Barrett, and others, is an appointed judge that can only rule on matters under her jurisdiction, "matters" usually being interpretations of law, promulgated by the legislative branch of government, that are also brought before her - i.e. - passive.

It's two entirely different things.