Ketanji Brown Jackson

[Yssup Rider]

It’s a GOP circle jerk.

For some reason, these dipshits think they are making up for all those times the world called the, idiots for supporting Twitler.

Or just trying to avoid further embarrassment.

Either way, it leaves their mouth breathing supporters in quite a pickle.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

#1: None of them went to Harvard ... but I can understand why it's important for you to change the subject ... even toilet cleaning would be more informative.

#2: Kerry went to Yale. You must have voted for him! Right? Bush made better grades at Yale than Kerry did. And Bush didn't marry money! Nor did he dine with a serial killing dictator.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

And we know going forward that no president that doesn’t have the same party senate as well will ever get to seat a Justice. Sad that it’s like that but that’s the new normal.

Nonsense. Before Harry Reid nuked the filibuster for confirming Federal nominees in 2014, it took 60 Senate votes to seat a Justice. That meant nominees had to be more moderate and acceptable to both parties to be confirmed. It worked for centuries until Dirty Harry changed the rules.

There is no reason why a nominee with moderate or centrist views cannot still be confirmed, even if the White House and Senate are controlled by different parties.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Well since neither you nor I get to set criteria for who’s qualified or what the qualifications should be, your and my opinions don’t matter. The only things that matters are

Did the president nominate them

Will they get 51 senate votes

Everything else is just playing to the TV audience (Twitter if you’re lyin Ted). The questioning and speeches and false indignation aren’t meant to change anyones mind nor inform anyone of anything that will ever matter. It’s all show.

When her nomination was announced, she was going to be the next Associate Justice. And that’s how it was for Barret and Kavanaugh. All show. And we know going forward that no president that doesn’t have the same party senate as well will ever get to seat a Justice. Sad that it’s like that but that’s the new normal.

I am going to agree with you on this. If this Supreme Court Hearing is nothing but a show for the masses. A show for what? What else in Government is a big show? I can't imagine this would be the only theatrical production that the Government would present to us.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

You don't even know what you are talking about. Obama went to Harvard Law School.

I'll address your ... errr.... remarks ...

#1 The adults in the room were discussion LAWYERS & LAW SCHOOL, because the thread is about a lawyer who is a Judge.

Bush did NOT attend Harvard Law School.
#2 "Trump" was not a topic of this thread.

Obama was an affirmative action Harvard Law student, as well as a POTUS .... and now YOU HAVE an affirmative action SCOTUS nominee, who has to be a racist for accepting the invitation as a Black female candidate ... based on her being a Black person...

... she doesn't know whether or not she's a "woman" ... yet!

Even though CNN et al ... will publicize that she is!

Actually, the person who doesn't know WTF he's talking about is..... YOU!

And like all NonAdult contributors when they don't know WTF they are talking about they change the subject and/or context and then accuse others of "not knowing" anything about the NEW TOPIC! WTF does it constantly and even starts a new thread ... are you all twins? You remind me ...

I need to got to the vet to pick up a prescription.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I agree. Academically, she is qualified.

.

in my opinion, academic scores should be way down the list on any list of qualifications

and besides the prime qualifications for this nomination were

black and woman

and neither jackson nor biden knows if jackson met those qualifications
as neither can define woman or dare try to

and black is a state of mind

for if you voted for trump, you aint black

and clarence thomas isnt considered black

while rachel dolezal is and who is that white guy in leadership at blm claiming to be black?, his name escapes me

so on these fronts, we dont know who we have with jackson. america is in the dark as to if jackson meets biden's required qualifications of black and woman

its a travesty i say, not proving up jackson having these qualifications to the satisfaction of americans

but we do fear, except when advantageous, jackson likely wont follow the constitution, but that isnt a requirement it seems to these people

heck do we even know jackson's preferred pronouns?

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by texassapper

Bork and Miers would like a word.

Miers was justifiably not qualified.

[1blackman1]

And Bork’s nomination was killed for political reasons. Nothing to do with whether he was qualified to be Justice, which he was. Which goes back to my assertion that all that matters is whether currently a nominee will get 51 senate votes. Previously it was 60 but McConnel changed it. Now he has to live with his decision. Just as he said Reid would have to live with the decision for the change for lower court judges to 51.

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

I am going to agree with you on this. If this Supreme Court Hearing is nothing but a show for the masses. A show for what? What else in Government is a big show? I can't imagine this would be the only theatrical production that the Government would present to us.

Easy answer, every hearing by either chamber of congress. Every speech and every sound bite. It’s all bullshit for public consumption so they can raise money. I’d think you figured that out a long time ago. But better late than never.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Easy answer, every hearing by either chamber of congress. Every speech and every sound bite. It’s all bullshit for public consumption so they can raise money. I’d think you figured that out a long time ago. But better late than never.

Why do people keep returning bullshit to Congress? You voted for Bitten who has been returning for decades spewing his bullshit. Why is that? I suppose that's why you opposed Trump. No bullshit!

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Easy answer, every hearing by either chamber of congress. Every speech and every sound bite. It’s all bullshit for public consumption so they can raise money. I’d think you figured that out a long time ago. But better late than never.

Actually I did. There are other areas of Government that are all show. In fact anything that is televised in association with Government most likely is.

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Nonsense. Before Harry Reid nuked the filibuster for confirming Federal nominees in 2014, it took 60 Senate votes to seat a Justice. That meant nominees had to be more moderate and acceptable to both parties to be confirmed. It worked for centuries until Dirty Harry changed the rules.

There is no reason why a nominee with moderate or centrist views cannot still be confirmed, even if the White House and Senate are controlled by different parties.

You don’t exactly know what you’re talking about. Reid only changed it for lower court judges. It was changed by McConnel for Justices. And no nominee will be viewed as moderate by the other side in the future just as they’ve not been viewed as moderate in my lifetime.

Nonetheless there used to be a gentleman’s agreement to approve judges if they were qualified with the exception of of Bork. It wasn’t until the right broke that agreement that we entered the “must control the senate to confirm a nominee”. Ask Garland, I don’t recall him even getting a vote when he was one of the most respected judges on the DC Circuit where he was the chief judge. He was the first nominee to not get a vote, irrespective of the rhetoric that occurred prior, every nominee got a hearing and vote.

The game has changed. And things never get less partisan.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

You don’t exactly know what you’re talking about. Reid only changed it for lower court judges. It was changed by McConnell for Justices. And no nominee will be viewed as moderate by the other side in the future just as they’ve not been viewed as moderate in my lifetime.

Nonetheless there used to be a gentleman’s agreement to approve judges if they were qualified with the exception of of Bork. It wasn’t until the right broke that agreement that we entered the “must control the senate to confirm a nominee”. Ask Garland, I don’t recall him even getting a vote when he was one of the most respected judges on the DC Circuit where he was the chief judge. He was the first nominee to not get a vote, irrespective of the rhetoric that occurred prior, every nominee got a hearing and vote.

The game has changed. And things never get less partisan.

I agree with some of this. Yes, McConnell expanded Harry Reid's filibuster nuke to include Justices, but only after Dems tried to filibuster Gorsuch, who was eminently qualified. And it was the left who turned "Bork" into a verb, so it makes no sense for you to blame that on the right.

I thought Garland probably should have been given a hearing, but the Dems were hoisted by their own petard due to the "Biden Rule" (actually the Biden/Schumer/Reid rule). However, I've lost respect for Garland since then, due to the way he has behaved like a partisan hack as AG. Now I think we dodged a bullet with that nomination.

Here's a more in-depth analysis of why the Dems have only themselves to blame for the current SCOTUS makeup. It was written after Kennedy announced his retirement in 2018 but before Trump nominated Kavanaugh to replace him.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...1f1_story.html

[1blackman1]

I didn’t blame the right on Bork. In fact I said it was purely political. However the rules didn’t change after Bork. Things went back to normal. The Biden rule is a falsehood as no matter what he said about waiting until the election, they still allowed a vote on Bush’s nominee.

As for the current courts makeup, I agree it was a problem of their own doing since the Dems could convince older liberal justices to retire and be replaced by younger justices to prevent a rightward swing.

As I stated. The game has changed.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

in my opinion, academic scores should be way down the list on any list of qualifications

Academic scores are not representative of a person's ability to function in human interactions on a personal level in business ... and government. Sometimes excellent academic levels coincide with excellent human-interaction skills, but I think those people are summarily dismissed, because they intimidate those around them, even though they are not intending that when they interact.



She would make a good SCOTUS Justice, ... and she knows what is a woman.....She also plays golf well.