Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson:Most Qualified and Experienced USSC Nominee in modern HISTORY

[ultmd]

There are a few Supreme Court Justices in history who have been EQUALLY qualified, but NONE in history who have been MORE qualified than Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In particular, KBJ is, BY FAR, already MORE experience and qualified than ANY of the current USSC Justices. And it's not even a close contest.

Judge Brown Jackson literally ticks off EVERY box used to measure USSC Justice candidates.

Of note is the already well-known FACT that Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett are the LEAST experienced and LEAST qualified members of the current court. And, in fact, they are also the LEAST qualified members of the current Court. No shock, there, of course.

 

[Napoleon]

There are a few Supreme Court Justices in history who have been EQUALLY qualified, but NONE in history who have been MORE qualified than Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In particular, KBJ is, BY FAR, already MORE experience and qualified than ANY of the current USSC Justices. And it's not even a close contest.

Judge Brown Jackson literally ticks off EVERY box used to measure USSC Justice candidates.

Of note is the already well-known FACT that Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett are the LEAST experienced and LEAST qualified members of the current court. And, in fact, they are also the LEAST qualified members of the current Court. No shock, there, of course.

Selecting completely arbitrary criteria that only Jackson meets is called confirmation bias.

 

[reflechissez]

Selecting completely arbitrary criteria that only Jackson meets is called confirmation bias.

Which criteria would you use?

 

[ultmd]

Selecting completely arbitrary criteria that only Jackson meets is called confirmation bias.

"Completely arbitrary criteria"???

That's pretty weak.

How can it be "completely arbitrary", when it's the criteria used to assess EVERY potential nominee for the highest court in the land?

Can you point to ANY of the criteria listed in that chart and make a case that it is "arbitrary"?

No, I don't believe you can. If those are "arbitrary criteria", what would be "essential criteria" in your mind, @Napoleon ? Please, be specific?

But if/when you choose to avoid my challenge, I think you and I will have reached an "understanding" of sorts.

Care to try again?

 

[SCrider]

Which criteria would you use?

This should be good.......

 

[RaleBulgarian]

There are a few Supreme Court Justices in history who have been EQUALLY qualified, but NONE in history who have been MORE qualified than Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In particular, KBJ is, BY FAR, already MORE experience and qualified than ANY of the current USSC Justices. And it's not even a close contest.

Judge Brown Jackson literally ticks off EVERY box used to measure USSC Justice candidates.

Of note is the already well-known FACT that Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett are the LEAST experienced and LEAST qualified members of the current court. And, in fact, they are also the LEAST qualified members of the current Court. No shock, there, of course.

Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS), not (USSC) United States Sentencing Commission.

What qualifies a judge to be a SCOTUS Justice is not defined by any partisan “wish list” of credentials.

There’s no reason to diminish the qualifications of other Justices to justify supporting Judge Jackson.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

How can it be "completely arbitrary", when it's the criteria used to assess EVERY potential nominee for the highest court in the land?

It isn’t. There is no requirements “check list” for SCOTUS nominees.

 

[Napoleon]

"Completely arbitrary criteria"???

That's pretty weak.

How can it be "completely arbitrary", when it's the criteria used to assess EVERY potential nominee for the highest court in the land?

Can you point to ANY of the criteria listed in that chart and make a case that it is "arbitrary"?

No, I don't believe you can. If those are "arbitrary criteria", what would be "essential criteria" in your mind, @Napoleon ? Please, be specific?

But if/when you choose to avoid my challenge, I think you and I will have reached an "understanding" of sorts.

Care to try again?

What does graduating from a public high school instead of a private high school or representing hobos in misdemeanor cases as a public defender have to do with Supreme Court qualification? And who says that is used to asses anyone?

 

[US&THEM]

What does graduating from a public high school instead of a private high school or representing hobos in misdemeanor cases as a public defender have to do with Supreme Court qualification? And who says that is used to asses anyone?

Being a Public defender is important because it shows she understands every aspect of the criminal law from all sides. You don’t agree? As for public high school it assumes she was not a rich kid.

 

[Craig234]

I have not been terribly impressed by her hearing. I admit I'm not familiar with her outside of it.

In saying that, I don't mean she is any less that hugely better than the Republican justices, greatly qualified, that she hasn't handled idiotic and corrupt Senators with grace.

So in comparison, she is hugely better. But she hasn't really impressed me with her legal views.

A key example for me was on 'originalism', when a Senator with an agenda asked her whether interpreting the law should give any consideration to modern meanings of the language, or should be limited to the meanings the people who passed it had at the time.

Our founding fathers were clear, and were right in my opinion, that our system, our government, our constitution, should be dynamic - meant to serve the country's needs, not to shackle, and should be changed as the nation's needs changed. That doesn't mean ignoring limits for convenience, but it means some flexibility in following principles rather than letters or the law.

She immediately without nuance responded agreeing with the right-wing that the interpretation should only consider what the words meant to the people when it was passed.

So, when the 14th amendment was passed granting equal rights, it would only mean the equal rights they meant at the time; discriminating for ay other reason, such as people being homosexual, isn't prohibited by the amendment, apparently, since they hadn't meant it when enacted. How can she defend the ruling striking down gay marriage bans, then? I haven't seen her asked.

I'll hope she does better than I'm seeing so far in the hearing, that she has better principles than I'm seeing. That sounds more critical than I mean - I'm not opposing her confirmation, just that I'd like more than I'm seeing than the 'offend no one' approach I've seen. Kagan and Sotamayer have been very good, especially Sotamayer.

 

[Craig234]

Being a Public defender is important because it shows she understands every aspect of the criminal law from all sides.

I hope you're right; I just haven't heard anything from her showing that in the comments I've seen (or anything showing she doesn't).

 

[US&THEM]

I hope you're right; I just haven't heard anything from her showing that in the comments I've seen (or anything showing she doesn't).

Watching these idiots focus on anything they believe they can win political points with their base is sad. I understand what happened with the last 2 and I thought it was nuts too.

 

[lemmiwinx]

Have they had all the questions about her high school drinking parties like they asked during the Gorsuch hearings? Or did I miss that part?

 

[VySky]

There are a few Supreme Court Justices in history who have been EQUALLY qualified, but NONE in history who have been MORE qualified than Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In particular, KBJ is, BY FAR, already MORE experience and qualified than ANY of the current USSC Justices. And it's not even a close contest.

Judge Brown Jackson literally ticks off EVERY box used to measure USSC Justice candidates.

Of note is the already well-known FACT that Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett are the LEAST experienced and LEAST qualified members of the current court. And, in fact, they are also the LEAST qualified members of the current Court. No shock, there, of course.

All that said and she can’t define what a woman us.

 

[vegas giants]

All that said and she can’t define what a woman us.

She doesnt need to

 

[KLATTU]

Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS), not (USSC) United States Sentencing Commission.

What qualifies a judge to be a SCOTUS Justice is not defined by any partisan “wish list” of credentials.

There’s no reason to diminish the qualifications of other Justices to justify supporting Judge Jackson.

analysis->true.
She's qualified, So are all the others. She's in.
End of discussion.

 

[j brown's body]

Which criteria would you use?

White, preferably a man, who can dodge sexual assault charges.

 

[US&THEM]

Have they had all the questions about her high school drinking parties like they asked during the Gorsuch hearings? Or did I miss that part?

All Libertarians want to know!!!!

 

[ecofarm]

Which criteria would you use?

You know.

 

[Moon]

There are a few Supreme Court Justices in history who have been EQUALLY qualified, but NONE in history who have been MORE qualified than Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In particular, KBJ is, BY FAR, already MORE experience and qualified than ANY of the current USSC Justices. And it's not even a close contest.

Judge Brown Jackson literally ticks off EVERY box used to measure USSC Justice candidates.

Of note is the already well-known FACT that Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett are the LEAST experienced and LEAST qualified members of the current court. And, in fact, they are also the LEAST qualified members of the current Court. No shock, there, of course.

Clarence Thomas has been a justice since 1991. I’d say he has a lot more experience in the job than Brown Jackson. That doesn’t diminish her qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court, and I think she’ll easily be confirmed.

 

[VySky]

She doesnt need to

Why?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Have they had all the questions about her high school drinking parties like they asked during the Gorsuch hearings? Or did I miss that part?

Kavanaugh.

 

[vegas giants]

Why?

Because when she gets a case on this issue she will read the expert testimony on both sides and make a decision

 

[Craig234]

I think qualifications have largely become unimportant in our politics - trump exemplified that with none - no one seems to support someone they oppose because of qualifications, they only use qualifications as an attack if they're missing from someone they are against.

 

[US&THEM]

Why?

All that said and she can’t define what a woman us.

It is dumb and sad Cater to the dumb