Ketanji Brown Jackson

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Northeastern undergraduate education ... even two of them ... results!

[texassapper]

We should just start calling the Ketjanianji Kids...

Oregon teacher arrested for... well you know what Democrats like...

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Do you have cable? My parents were in diapers when that show was on TV. It's still on in 2022. I watch it with my boys just like my dad watched it with me when I was a kid. Do you prefer that I call you "old geezer" if you take offense to "old timer"?

Anyway, the rest of your drivel was the usual TL;DR nothing burger as usual I assume. Maybe you had some good points but like the usual Trumpettes, I highly doubt it. But hey, look at the bright side, you'll get plenty of "likes" from the circle jerk genius crew for failing to put me in my place regarding a qualified judge getting a position she worked hard for to earn. LOL

I guess you missed the part where I said she was qualified. Phony, funny how you forget what you don't want to remember since it ruins your narrative. This isn't about being qualified, of course she is qualified, she has already been vetted 3 times.


My point, my only point is that she believes in a living Constitution, she proved that in her confirmation hearing, she lied when she said she didn't knowing that answer would get her in more trouble. She believes that the Constitution must be interpreted to fit the times, the very definition of a living Constitution.


But let's keep this simple. Do you believe SC Justices should change the words, meaning of Constitutional, statutory law because "times have changed"?


That's why I believe she shouldn't be seated. Put up any other Black female that will swear fealty to the idea of textualism and I'll not only support her confirmation, I'll make a donation to her favorite charity.


But what does a guy like you do with that bit of information? Let me guess, you think I'm a racist but isn't that your answer to literally every topic? It took you how many Ivy League degrees to become a one trick phony, sorry, pony.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by Lucas McCain

Do you have cable? My parents were in diapers when that show was on TV. It's still on in 2022. I watch it with my boys just like my dad watched it with me when I was a kid. Do you prefer that I call you "old geezer" if you take offense to "old timer"?

Anyway, the rest of your drivel was the usual TL;DR nothing burger as usual I assume. Maybe you had some good points but like the usual Trumpettes, I highly doubt it. But hey, look at the bright side, you'll get plenty of "likes" from the circle jerk genius crew for failing to put me in my place regarding a qualified judge getting a position she worked hard for to earn. LOL

Aware of the term "ageist" are you?

age·ist

• characterized by or showing prejudice or discrimination on the grounds of a person's age

It's in the same category as racist, sexist, bigot. So, you are an ageist, calling somebody else a racist, misogynist. Interesting.

[1blackman1]

She’s qualified. That’s all that matters and all that should matter. Same for everyone that gets nominated for any court. Republicans can nominate as many textualists as they like and they should be approved if they are qualified. If Democrats want living constitution, as long as the person is qualified they should be confirmed.

I’ve long said and maintain that senate confirmation should be only about qualification not about political leanings. Whether it’s for cabinet positions, federal judges and any other appointments. I don’t approve of it for either party.

Unfortunately we’re headed to the time that opposite party senates will be able to essentially shut down a presidency by not taking up any nominations whether for the judiciary or cabinet. We will see how things work when we reach that point.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

She’s qualified.

You mean she IS a Black female?

BTW ... that's what was said about Sotomayer. "She's qualified"!

Skin color and gender are not "qualifications" for SCOTUS Justice. Period!

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

I’ve long said and maintain that senate confirmation should be only about qualification not about political leanings.

maintain it all you like but your maintenance doesn't hold up

[nevergaveitathought]

one thing about jackson

at least during biden's search for a black and a woman

he stumbled upon a real african-american

what i mean is, it is increasingly rare to find that a descendant of slaves has been rewarded with schooling and position in present day america, as opposed to others

take harvard for example, out of its affirmative attempts to boost blacks over others, like asians for example, only about ten percent of blacks at harvard are american descendants of slaves

the rest are nouveau blacks, of more recent american vintage, their families or themsleves immigrating from places like nigeria etc.

but no matter, to the front of the line with them also

people recognize benefits when they see them

[texassapper]

Yeah they found a black vagina that loves pedophiles. What an achievement.

[texassapper]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

She’s qualified.

because she has a black vagina. Nothing else about her remotely qualifies her for the job.

But that’s all you need if you are attempting to assuage the affirmative action class.

[Tsmokies]

Just another no win fixation from the cartel. What's next Biden's white House doggie???

🐕 🐕 🐕 (I advise better then don Jr....woof woof) and don't make deals with the corrupt middle east...CGA corrupt golf Association

Dah...big azz cartel losers. ( I'm not calling anyone fat dipshits) still cracking myself up though without needing to read all the BS on here

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

She’s qualified. That’s all that matters and all that should matter. Same for everyone that gets nominated for any court. Republicans can nominate as many textualists as they like and they should be approved if they are qualified. If Democrats want living constitution, as long as the person is qualified they should be confirmed.

+1

Excellent point 1B1. That's exactly how it should be. Senator Mitch "the turtle" McConnell calls justice Clarence Thomas a "Great American" because Thomas is conservative. She went to an Ivy League law school, Thomas went to an Ivy League law school. She is just as qualified as Thomas was.

Keep in mind that Republicans blocked Miers (who was nominated by Bush43) because she did not attend an Ivy League law school. She went to law school at SMU (Southern Methodist University) in Dallas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Excellent point 1B1. That's exactly how it should be. Senator Mitch "the turtle" McConnell calls justice Clarence Thomas a "Great American" because Thomas is conservative. She went to an Ivy League law school, Thomas went to an Ivy League law school. She is just as qualified as Thomas was.

There are folks who probably attended the same high school as you, but that doesn't make you as "qualified" as they are. Some folks just can't sweep floors worth a shit no matter what high school they attended. But they seem to feel "qualified"!

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

There are folks who probably attended the same high school as you, but that doesn't make you as "qualified" as they are.

There are some senators who believe that a supreme court justice should have attended an Ivy League Law School. Jackson and Thomas went to an Ivy League Law School. Brown went to Harvard Law, Thomas went to Yale law school (just like Bill and Hilary Clinton). The only difference between Jackson and Thomas (besides Female/Male difference) Thomas is conservative.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Thomas is conservative.

So? How many Thomas opinions have you read? The more important "issue" in the selection process is not "liberalism" vs. "conservatism," but selecting someone who is a "strict constructionist." The real meaning of that phrase has been effectively destroyed by the CommunistSocialistLiberals who have attempted to trash it by redefining the meaning.

The current Skin-Gender selection doesn't even pretend. Fortunately, she's in the minority if she unfortunately ends up on the Court, and she will be be loud and in the minority ala Sotomayerist. What is too overlooked is minorities in our society really want "strict constructionists" deciding whether or not they should have been convicted for their conduct and whether or not their sentence is proper.

Also, unfortunately, they don't teach that adequately in "Ivy League" law schools, where elements of an offense are not important to social structuring their behavior modification.

Have you ever heard the phrase: "It ought to be against the law"?