Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who had a 'good faith' concern about affirmative action would have been horrified by ACB's nomination after Trump specifically said he wanted to nominate a woman and there were certainly more qualified individuals available.

But right wingers were thrilled about ACB.

KBJ will be great - I mean she's definitely more qualified than the majority of sitting SCOTUS judges were when they were nominated.

I agree that KBJ is a great choice. But why would one be “horrified” by ACB? Because she’s not an Ivy Leaguer?

Because Trump said he would nominate a woman. Had the same person been a man, would not have been nominated.

He nominated a safe & submissive woman. The kind his base loves. She isn't regular Catholic in the way of Kavanaugh (who is awful in his own Catholic boys club way) but she's out in the fringes, more in alliance with the evangelicals 45 owes a debt to. Shameful that both were considered "the best" for SCOTUS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t need to read the resume. Looks like we already know why she was picked. I really don’t understand why anyone wants to be part of a party that panders like this to race.

She was picked because she is exceptionally qualified.

Are you outraged at all the while male justices throughout history who were picked because they were white males? Who would not have been picked if they were not white, or not male?

Two wrongs make a right?

Either way, she will probably be a competent justice. Whether she will be a brilliant one is to be proven. So far her judicial record is better than Sotomayor, who is the weakest of the justices and a perfect example of someone elevated beyond her capacities pretty much her entire career to meet identity politics goals. It's also almost a given she will toe the Democratic line in just about everything so it's unlikely that she will surprise people or swing a verdict.

She may also be the last black justice appointed to the court for a long time. Once Clarence Thomas retires/dies, the court will likely revert to just having the one black justice as 1 / 9 = approximate share of the US population that is black.

I don't see any problem having 9 black female justices.

+1 “People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there are nine.”
- Ruth Bader Ginsberg
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/justice-ginsburg-enough-women-supreme-court

Retiring while Obama was in office would have hastened that goal.

There are many reasons why it would have been right to retire during Obama's tenure in office, but not this.

Did you forget that RBG was replaced by another female justice, ACB? RGB's passing during Trump's presidency affected the liberal/conservative balance of the court, but did not change the male/female balance of the court at all.

The only * that will be next to Judge Jackson's name will be the footnote:

* - First African American woman nominated and confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States

She will join a list of recognized "first" justices. There have been 115 justices and very few outside of the male, Protestant, white Demographic (85/115)

Roger Taney - first Catholic man confirmed to the SCOTUS (15/115)
Thurgood Marshall - first African American man confirmed to the SCOTUS (2/115, soon to be 3/115)
Louis Brandeis - first Jewish man confirmed to the SCOTUS (8/115)
Sandra Day O'Connor - first woman confirmed to the SCOTUS (5/115, soon to be 6/115)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg - first Jewish woman confirmed to the SCOTUS (1/115)
Sonia Sotomayor - first Latina woman confirmed to the SCOTUS (1/115)
Ketanji Brown Jackson - soon-to-be first African American woman confirmed to the SCOTUS (1/115)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t need to read the resume. Looks like we already know why she was picked. I really don’t understand why anyone wants to be part of a party that panders like this to race.

She was picked because she is exceptionally qualified.

Are you outraged at all the while male justices throughout history who were picked because they were white males? Who would not have been picked if they were not white, or not male?

Two wrongs make a right?

Either way, she will probably be a competent justice. Whether she will be a brilliant one is to be proven. So far her judicial record is better than Sotomayor, who is the weakest of the justices and a perfect example of someone elevated beyond her capacities pretty much her entire career to meet identity politics goals. It's also almost a given she will toe the Democratic line in just about everything so it's unlikely that she will surprise people or swing a verdict.

She may also be the last black justice appointed to the court for a long time. Once Clarence Thomas retires/dies, the court will likely revert to just having the one black justice as 1 / 9 = approximate share of the US population that is black.

I don't see any problem having 9 black female justices.

+1 “People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there are nine.”
- Ruth Bader Ginsberg
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/justice-ginsburg-enough-women-supreme-court

Retiring while Obama was in office would have hastened that goal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t need to read the resume. Looks like we already know why she was picked. I really don’t understand why anyone wants to be part of a party that panders like this to race.

She was picked because she is exceptionally qualified.

Are you outraged at all the while male justices throughout history who were picked because they were white males? Who would not have been picked if they were not white, or not male?

Two wrongs make a right?

Either way, she will probably be a competent justice. Whether she will be a brilliant one is to be proven. So far her judicial record is better than Sotomayor, who is the weakest of the justices and a perfect example of someone elevated beyond her capacities pretty much her entire career to meet identity politics goals. It's also almost a given she will toe the Democratic line in just about everything so it's unlikely that she will surprise people or swing a verdict.

She may also be the last black justice appointed to the court for a long time. Once Clarence Thomas retires/dies, the court will likely revert to just having the one black justice as 1 / 9 = approximate share of the US population that is black.

I don't see any problem having 9 black female justices.

+1 “People ask me sometimes, when — when do you think it will it be enough? When will there be enough women on the court? And my answer is when there are nine.”
- Ruth Bader Ginsberg
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/justice-ginsburg-enough-women-supreme-court

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t need to read the resume. Looks like we already know why she was picked. I really don’t understand why anyone wants to be part of a party that panders like this to race.

She was picked because she is exceptionally qualified.

Are you outraged at all the while male justices throughout history who were picked because they were white males? Who would not have been picked if they were not white, or not male?

Two wrongs make a right?

Either way, she will probably be a competent justice. Whether she will be a brilliant one is to be proven. So far her judicial record is better than Sotomayor, who is the weakest of the justices and a perfect example of someone elevated beyond her capacities pretty much her entire career to meet identity politics goals. It's also almost a given she will toe the Democratic line in just about everything so it's unlikely that she will surprise people or swing a verdict.

She may also be the last black justice appointed to the court for a long time. Once Clarence Thomas retires/dies, the court will likely revert to just having the one black justice as 1 / 9 = approximate share of the US population that is black.

I don't see any problem having 9 black female justices.

Hmmm, Biden has been saying the court should reflect the populace. Is that no longer the case?

In principle, if 9 black female justices is fine (because we assess based upon judicial philosophy and qualifications other than phenotypes), then shouldn't 9 white dudes be alright as well?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t need to read the resume. Looks like we already know why she was picked. I really don’t understand why anyone wants to be part of a party that panders like this to race.

She was picked because she is exceptionally qualified.

Are you outraged at all the while male justices throughout history who were picked because they were white males? Who would not have been picked if they were not white, or not male?

Two wrongs make a right?

Either way, she will probably be a competent justice. Whether she will be a brilliant one is to be proven. So far her judicial record is better than Sotomayor, who is the weakest of the justices and a perfect example of someone elevated beyond her capacities pretty much her entire career to meet identity politics goals. It's also almost a given she will toe the Democratic line in just about everything so it's unlikely that she will surprise people or swing a verdict.

She may also be the last black justice appointed to the court for a long time. Once Clarence Thomas retires/dies, the court will likely revert to just having the one black justice as 1 / 9 = approximate share of the US population that is black.

I don't see any problem having 9 black female justices.

Hearings kick off March 21
https://www.politico.com/minutes/congress/02-28-2022/scotus-update/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t need to read the resume. Looks like we already know why she was picked. I really don’t understand why anyone wants to be part of a party that panders like this to race.

She was picked because she is exceptionally qualified.

Are you outraged at all the while male justices throughout history who were picked because they were white males? Who would not have been picked if they were not white, or not male?

Two wrongs make a right?

Either way, she will probably be a competent justice. Whether she will be a brilliant one is to be proven. So far her judicial record is better than Sotomayor, who is the weakest of the justices and a perfect example of someone elevated beyond her capacities pretty much her entire career to meet identity politics goals. It's also almost a given she will toe the Democratic line in just about everything so it's unlikely that she will surprise people or swing a verdict.

She may also be the last black justice appointed to the court for a long time. Once Clarence Thomas retires/dies, the court will likely revert to just having the one black justice as 1 / 9 = approximate share of the US population that is black.

Anonymous wrote:Veterans are given preference over other similarly qualified applicants. But you never hear anyone complain about thar. I don't know why it would be any different for KBJ.

Really? No idea at all why it would be any different?

And people complain about it plenty, where have you been? Go back to the drawing board and find another analogy lol.

Veterans are given preference over other similarly qualified applicants. But you never hear anyone complain about thar. I don't know why it would be any different for KBJ.

Anonymous wrote:Don’t need to read the resume. Looks like we already know why she was picked. I really don’t understand why anyone wants to be part of a party that panders like this to race.

She was picked because she is exceptionally qualified.

Are you outraged at all the while male justices throughout history who were picked because they were white males? Who would not have been picked if they were not white, or not male?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue is the way it was done. Biden announcing the nomination will only be a black woman is what is damaging. She will always be seen as the affirmative action choice, and he did her a great disservice handling it that way.

I will speak on behalf of all brilliant and more than qualified AAs in the US. You are not in her league and she isn’t thinking about you or your narrow beliefs at all. She is too busy reaping the fruits and rewards of her, gift of superior intellect, hard work and excellence.

Life’s not always fair and yes some people really are smarter than others. And you and everyone else in the room knows it and these people often aren’t in the package you think they should be.

You are very welcome.

I’m the one you are replying to. I am an AA Woman you fool. You do not speak for all of us.

NP. And you speak for very few, or the ones closely aligned to the Clarence Thomas' school of thought. It's sad that in 2022, you are so insecure and still seek the approval of others. Really girl, you're worried that they consider you an affirmative action pick. You are that insecure of your achievements that you use precious braincells for that line of thought. Pitiful

I am a other liberal black woman that wishes Biden would have not announced his intention to nominate a black woman. Why not just move in silence? What was the point to announcing your intention a month in advance? Created unnecessary cloud on a VERY qualified, great choice.

Because Black leaders were heavily pressuring him to commit in advance to nominating a Black woman.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The main issue is the way it was done. Biden announcing the nomination will only be a black woman is what is damaging. She will always be seen as the affirmative action choice, and he did her a great disservice handling it that way.

I will speak on behalf of all brilliant and more than qualified AAs in the US. You are not in her league and she isn’t thinking about you or your narrow beliefs at all. She is too busy reaping the fruits and rewards of her, gift of superior intellect, hard work and excellence.

Life’s not always fair and yes some people really are smarter than others. And you and everyone else in the room knows it and these people often aren’t in the package you think they should be.

You are very welcome.

I’m the one you are replying to. I am an AA Woman you fool. You do not speak for all of us.

NP. And you speak for very few, or the ones closely aligned to the Clarence Thomas' school of thought. It's sad that in 2022, you are so insecure and still seek the approval of others. Really girl, you're worried that they consider you an affirmative action pick. You are that insecure of your achievements that you use precious braincells for that line of thought. Pitiful

I am a other liberal black woman that wishes Biden would have not announced his intention to nominate a black woman. Why not just move in silence? What was the point to announcing your intention a month in advance? Created unnecessary cloud on a VERY qualified, great choice.

In a perfect world I would agree with you. But Biden needed to kowtow to African American voters. He was losing badly in the primaries until he did.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t need to read the resume. Looks like we already know why she was picked. I really don’t understand why anyone wants to be part of a party that panders like this to race.

You just don’t want to read her résumé because it’s better than many of the people the guys you voted for put on the court.

That’s just argumentative. The fact is ALL the members of the Supreme Court have very impressive resumes.