Selecting completely arbitrary criteria that only Jackson meets is called confirmation bias.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.
Which criteria would you use?Selecting completely arbitrary criteria that only Jackson meets is called confirmation bias.
"Completely arbitrary criteria"???Selecting completely arbitrary criteria that only Jackson meets is called confirmation bias.
This should be good.......Which criteria would you use?
Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS), not (USSC) United States Sentencing Commission.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.
It isn’t. There is no requirements “check list” for SCOTUS nominees.How can it be "completely arbitrary", when it's the criteria used to assess EVERY potential nominee for the highest court in the land?
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?"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?
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).
All that said and she can’t define what a woman us.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.
She doesnt need toAll that said and she can’t define what a woman us.
analysis->true.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.
Which criteria would you use?
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?
Which criteria would you use?
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.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.
Why?She doesnt need to
Kavanaugh.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?
Because when she gets a case on this issue she will read the expert testimony on both sides and make a decisionWhy?
Why?
All that said and she can’t define what a woman us.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?