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

[ultmd]

So you made it up. That’s all you had to say.

....so you can't rebut it. Got it.

But I have to tell you....I already knew that much as soon as I read that idiotic question. Clearly, you're unaware of the recent history of USSC nominations. The only question is whether that is due to your age, or to lack of education

So again: All of the criteria listed in that chart are the criteria raised by REPUBLICANS over the last 40 years in public comments about potential Democratic nominees to the Court.

You don't have to like it. But you can't refute it, so you'll have to deal with it.

 

[Bullseye]

And yet, I am quite sure that you (like others before you) will go silent when challenged to give a more appropriate set of "qualifications" than those listed (which are the "qualifications" consistently cited for nominees of the last few decades).

Care to prove me wrong?

Don't need to - it's obvious to the casual observer.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Depends on the subject matter.

Regarding the subject of the proper acronym for the Supreme Court Of The United States, Wikipedia is positively not an authoritative source.

Again, it's not relevant to anything in the thread, but if it matters to you....so be it.

The thread is specifically about a nominee for appointment to SCOTUS.

And you're the one posting ridiculous tangential objections to a very credible "checklist".

Your checklist is incredible, as in “not credible”.

In fact, there is no established checklist for SCOTUS nominees.

Listing/Pointing out and comparing the respective professional credentials and experiences of the members of the Court simply is what it is.

Irrelevant to determining Judge Jackson’s qualifications and suitability to become the newest Associate Justice.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

Ever since the advent of Donald J. Trump in 2016 the Republican Party is the party of fools, and they are being led by fools.

Case in point, the confirmation hearings of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson who has been nominated for the Supreme Court. A solemn occasion, of course, even if Republican Senators are making fools of themselves.

It would be laughable if it weren't so disheartening to see U.S. Senators act this way.

The Guardian explains, "At 2.54pm on the second day of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearings that will determine whether she takes a seat on the US supreme court, the solemn proceedings took a nosedive into farce.

"Ted Cruz, the Republican senator from Texas, turned theatrically to an outsized blow-up of a children’s book, Antiracist Baby by Ibram X Kendi. Pointing to a cartoon from its pages of an infant in diapers taking their first walk, he asked Jackson: “Do you agree with this book … that babies are racist?”

“Senator,” Jackson began with a sigh. And then she paused for seven full seconds, which in the august setting of the Senate judiciary committee hearing felt like a year."

Viewers knew exactly what Jackson wanted to say, but couldn't because she respected the august setting. "Senator, you are a freaking idiot."

"Here she was, aged 51, with almost a decade’s experience as a federal judge behind her and, if confirmed, the history-making distinction of becoming the first Black woman to sit on the nation’s highest court ahead of her. And she was being asked whether babies were racist?" The Guardian.

Flabbergasted, she finally was able to blurt out, “I have not reviewed any of those books,” she said. “They don’t come up in my work as a judge, which I’m respectfully here to address.”

Undaunted, largely because he was clueless, Cruz chose to focus on critical race theory (CRT), the years-old academic theory that had become the latest conservative hot-button issue in Texas.

Trying desperately to be patient with the mindless Senator, "Again, she stressed, this was a subject that had absolutely nothing to do with her work – or by implication, the job of a supreme court justice."

Lindsey Graham, the Republican senator from South Carolina, who had stomped out of the hearing earlier wrongly accused Jackson of having called George W Bush and the former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld “war criminals.”

Marsha Blackburn, Republican senator from Tennessee, asked Jackson whether she could “provide a definition for the word "woman."

According to The Guardian, Senator Chuck Grassley, the top Republican in the judiciary committee, promised at the start of the hearings, there would be no “spectacle” or “political circus” coming from his side of the aisle.

 

[ultmd]

Look at how unqualified Thomas is. I hope he dies soon and dies painfully. The sexual abusing, misogynist asshole.

...Wow.

I absolutely cannot say I'm ready to go there with you on this, @lurchadams.

Thomas clearly came to the Court with the thinnest professional and academic resume' of anyone in recent history. And Barrett is a close second.

Thomas (much like Kavanaugh) is credibly accused of sexual harassment by several women....and then demonstrated himself to be temperamentally unfit during his hearings.

But I don't wish death upon him (i.e. Thomas).

 

[ultmd]

People like @TurtleDude and @maxparrish look at black people as second class citizens.

If true, not surprising.

Certainly, they (and others like them) have some serious white-grievance/white nationalist issues, of some sort.

It's how they behave. They feel that every time a black person gets appointed to a high position they're intruding on our white nationalist country. Those guys

Sure seems that way, based upon just about everything they post on this board.

 

[ultmd]

Don't need to - it's obvious to the casual observer.

.....only if by "casual", you mean "ignorant rightwingers who offer fact-free opinions, and then run when challenged to back them up".

It's notable that neither you, nor any other critic of the OP can present ANY examples of "qualifications" that have been omitted.

That says it all.

 

[ultmd]

Regarding the subject of the proper acronym for the Supreme Court Of The United States, Wikipedia is positively not an authoritative source.

Thanks, yet again, for your opinion, @RaleBulgarian.

In this case, however, it's perfectly acceptable. And, given that you keep running from the chance to present the "authoritative source" for "proper acronyms".....I think you're just being silly at this point.

The thread is specifically about a nominee for appointment to SCOTUS.

That would be a decent GENERAL (but not very specific) description, yes.

But it is SPEFICICALLY about the qualifications of a nominee to the Court in comparison to those of the current members of the Court.

And the OP presents what is still the best and only list of objectively measurable criteria

Your checklist is incredible, as in “not credible”.

One more time....thank you for your opinion.

But I'm afraid that your repeated inability to counter your criticism with ANY other criteria, qualifications, etc......renders your opinions meaningless.

In fact, there is no established checklist for SCOTUS nominees

In fact, every single one of the listed has been a publicly stated consideration in the nomination process of at least one of every current member of the Court.

And we've already established that you can't come up with any other criteria....so......thank you again for your opinion.

Irrelevant to determining Judge Jackson’s qualifications and suitability to become the newest Associate Justice.

But TOTALLY relevant to the actual TOPIC (as opposed to your imagined understanding) of this thread...i.e. that Brown-Jackson's combination of professional and judicial experience, along with academic credentials...are unmatched by any other member of the Court.

I suppose that if the point of my OP was simply to "determine Jackson's qualifications and suitability".....you'd have a valid point here.

Unfortunately, that's NOT what this thread is about. And, since I'm the one who actually started this thread, I'd take my word for it. Or...you can just READ THE TITLE again for yourself.

 

[Bullseye]

.....only if by "casual", you mean "ignorant rightwingers who offer fact-free opinions, and then run when challenged to back them up".

It's notable that neither you, nor any other critic of the OP can present ANY examples of "qualifications" that have been omitted.

That says it all.

I never claimed there WERE any qualifications that were omitted. Just the opposite - I suggested some "qualifications" were added to boost her standing.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Thanks, yet again, for your opinion, @RaleBulgarian.

In this case, however, it's perfectly acceptable. And, given that you keep running from the chance to present the "authoritative source" for "proper acronyms".....I think you're just being silly at this point.

That’s right, cling to your ignorance.

Tell ya what, provide a link to any United States Supreme Court, or other U.S. federal government document that uses any acronym other than “SCOTUS”, and I’ll concede.

And the OP presents what is still the best and only list of objectively measurable criteria

Ridiculous, phony, ignorant child’s list.

One more time....thank you for your opinion.

Thanks again for the laugh.

In fact, every single one of the listed has been a publicly stated consideration in the nomination process of at least one of every current member of the Court.

So what? You think something “publicly stated” means it’s on a check-list? Plain stupid.

Factually, your goofy cut/paste check-list is meaningless.

 

[KLATTU]

Gorsuch,BArrett and Kavanugh have proved to be first rate judges who rule according to the law.
Trump somehow got those right.
Jackson will deliver the goods for Dems. Liberal activism.

 

[lurchadams]

...Wow.

I absolutely cannot say I'm ready to go there with you on this, @lurchadams.

Thomas clearly came to the Court with the thinnest professional and academic resume' of anyone in recent history. And Barrett is a close second.

Thomas (much like Kavanaugh) is credibly accused of sexual harassment by several women....and then demonstrated himself to be temperamentally unfit during his hearings.

But I don't wish death upon him (i.e. Thomas).

I'm sorry, my friend - until there are SCOTUS term limits, death is the only way we're going to get rid of that piece of shit and his disgusting QAnon wife.

Both of them need to die and go to hell, soon. They're killing America.

 

[RIP U.S. Democracy]

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 was truly despicable how those racist Republican Senators like Hawley, Cruz, and Graham treated Jackson. Kudos to her for maintaining her dignity and composure and not giving those imbeciles the satisfaction of losing her temper with them...unlike that idiot Kavanaugh a few years ago, who couldn't handle questions about his alleged sexual assault without throwing a temper tantrum.

But white men get to act like little cry baby bitches when things don't got there way....black men and black women do not.

And shame on Dirk Durbin for allowing Jackson to be abused by Republicans the way she was. She wasn't even allowed to finish answering her questions most of the time, without being rudely interrupted.

This is why the Democrats are going to get their butts kicked in November, because they are also too nice to these Republican fascist assholes.

 

[Craig234]

I consider being a public defender a problem. Built in empathy for the powerless.
And is public high school a real plus?
Only time will tell-hope she avoids bonehead statements like Sotomayor made.

What a bizarre, pathetic post. Who are you, Ayn Rand's nephew? I suppose you think defendants shouldn't be allowed lawyers - why coddle criminals with all that help?

 

[ultmd]

I never claimed there WERE any qualifications that were omitted. Just the opposite - I suggested some "qualifications" were added to boost her standing.

Stupid comment. As noted previously, each and every one of those so-called "added qualifications" were first cited in defense of previous REPUBLICAN nominees to the Court.

So your point is that you have no real point to make in rebuttal to the OP....other than semantics.

Thanks for tacitly admitting it.

 

[ultmd]

That’s right, cling to your ignorance.

...the predictable act of projection from an ignorant person.

Again, if you could present ANY evidence of the "authoritative sources" for "proper acronyms"....you'd have done so by now.

You have not...and you will not....because you CANNOT do it.

And we both know it, at this point. That's pretty clear. Everything else from you has been just empty-headed rhetorical filler material.

This is what happens when people like you who are F.O.S. get challenged.

Tell ya what, provide a link to any United States Supreme Court, or other U.S. federal government document that uses any acronym other than “SCOTUS”, and I’ll concede.

....you're DEFLECTING now. That's funny (and telling). But, that's not how this is going to work. You don't get to demand anything of me, until you ANSWER my REPEATED challenge to you. You can't run from that, because I won't allow it. Now post links to the "authoritative source" for "proper acronyms"...or we can just agree that your obsession with the use of "SCOTUS" vs "USSC" was little more than some high-level "moron" stuff....or (perhaps more likelly) just some low-level DEFLECTION from someone who doesn't have the "chops" to come up with any kind of objective, rational criticism of the KBJ nomination.

So here's what you must do, @RaleBulgarian . Since I have already posted a reference (and there are more where that came from) in support of my position.......and YOU have posting NOTHING to back up your ignorant argument/lie.......it is YOUR responsibility to post links, or admit to your original LIE. YOU (not I) are the one clinging to the myth (i.e. moronic LIE) of some NON-EXISTENT "authoritative source" for "proper acronyms", my friend. It is, therefore, YOUR DUTY to post links to said "authoritative sources" for "proper acronyms".

What are you so afraid of? I think we both know the answer to that, don't we?

You're afraid of the FACT that you've been caught in another moronic LIE, obviously.

Ridiculous, phony, ignorant child’s list.

....says every ignorant critic of the KBJ nomination.....and virtually NO ONE else.

Thanks again for demonstrating why OPINIONS like yours (i.e. those that are based upon nothing more than FEELINGS and EMOTIONS of folk with undeserved entitlement issues) are often equated to "assholes", my friend.

Thanks again for the laugh.

likewise, my friend. It has been my pleasure. You've given me plenty of TRUE laughs in this thread, yourself.

The difference between us, of course, is that my laughs are at your expense, while yours are in interest of your personal defense.

So what?

So when you can show me examples of your criticism of those very same "criteria" when cited in defense of less qualified, less experienced recent nominees (i.e. Kavanaugh, Barrett, Roberts, Gorsuch, Alito, etc,)....you'll have a valid point to make. Until then, your argument is just empty-headed nonsense.

Sorry, but it is what it is.

Factually, your goofy cut/paste check-list is meaningless.

....actually......"factually", your fact-free personal OPINIONS are meaningless.

And we've proven that, with your help, in this very thread.

Thanks again, for your opinion. Without your constant emotives in this thread, it would have been much more difficult to illustrate to others the shallow nature of what passes as "intellectual" political debate from people like you, with respect to the KBJ nomination.

 

[noonereal]

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.

And this in spite of looking at only 7% of the population.

Yes she is qualified and I like her but make no mistake, this is affirmative action and discrimination.

 

[ultmd]

I'm sorry, my friend - until there are SCOTUS term limits, death is the only way we're going to get rid of that piece of shit and his disgusting QAnon wife.

I understand that. We all do.

There is little doubt that Thomas (and Kavanaugh) is temperamentally unfit for a seat on the highest court in the land. There is little doubt that Thomas and Barrett represent (literally) the "floor" in terms of professional qualifications/credentials for a seat on the modern USSC.

I just can't go so far as to wish literal death upon Thomas, nor any other member of the Court, nor any politician.

And I say that FULLY aware that the other side suffers from no such personal/moral encumbrances.

Both of them need to die and go to hell, soon. They're killing America.

I agree with the latter. Thomas and his wife are quite literally poisoning American society and the American body politic.

I'll leave the rest (i.e. the former) to God.

 

[Bullseye]

Stupid comment. As noted previously, each and every one of those so-called "added qualifications" were first cited in defense of previous REPUBLICAN nominees to the Court.

So your point is that you have no real point to make in rebuttal to the OP....other than semantics.

Thanks for tacitly admitting it.

Nice try - your own confused and distorted opinions are the only thing in play here.

 

[ultmd]

It was truly despicable how those racist Republican Senators like Hawley, Cruz, and Graham treated Jackson. Kudos to her for maintaining her dignity and composure and not giving those imbeciles the satisfaction of losing her temper with them...unlike that idiot Kavanaugh a few years ago, who couldn't handle questions about his alleged sexual assault without throwing a temper tantrum.

But white men get to act like little cry baby bitches when things don't got there way....black men and black women do not.

And shame on Dirk Durbin for allowing Jackson to be abused by Republicans the way she was. She wasn't even allowed to finish answering her questions most of the time, without being rudely interrupted.

This is why the Democrats are going to get their butts kicked in November, because they are also too nice to these Republican fascist assholes.

Agree on all points. Durbin's fecklessness was particularly galling to me, as well.

When given the choice between "Weak and Right" vs "Strong and Wrong".....most voters (who are generally not very sophisticated) will choose "Strong and Wrong", because most voters trust their visceral feelings more than their intellectual ability to think/reason independently.

This is why/how Democrats (who have enjoyed large MAJORITY support on almost every major issue for the last 30+ years)....have managed to turn that MAJORITY public support (on the issues) into one "50/50" election after another. Voters value "strength" (or, at least the perception of it), and the GOP'ers understand that.

Democrats keep thinking that voters will reward them for their policy ideas, when voters REALLY prefer to have their FEARS and RESENTMENTS addressed. In other words:

• Dems keep coming to the political arena armed with their policy papers and dictionaries......while GOP'ers show up with their brass knuckles and a lead pipe.
• Dems think they are in having a policy debate with a "loyal opposition", while GOP'ers consider themselves to be in a fight-to-the-death with "liberals" and "the left".
• Dems treat politics like it's DEBATE CLUB.....GOP'ers treat it like it's FIGHT CLUB.

Basically, when one side brings brass knuckles, while the other side brings its dictionary.....the results are fairly predictable.

Modern politics is a proverbial (and, increasingly, a literal) STREET FIGHT, and the public (whether they admit it, or not) wants to see that street fight. If Dems don't hurry up and engage in the PROVERBIAL Street Fight, they are going to be faced with LITERAL Street Fights across the country.

Until the Dems come to grips with the reality of the modern political arena, they will continue to tread water (at best) in elections across this country.

My view is that the only remedy for this is for the current generation of Democrats in power needs to retire and be replaced. They are the same people who made possible, and then helped usher in, the era of Reaganism. And they are the people today who continue to compromise and negotiate with themselves (rather than with their opponents) on every issue.

Until they are replaced with Dems with a spine......"Strong and Wrong" will continue to hold outsized influence in American politics.

"Weak and Right" cannot defeat the demagoguery of "Strong and Wrong". The only way to defeat "Strong and Wrong" is with "Strong and Right".

 

[ultmd]

And this in spite of looking at only 7% of the population.

What?

Yes she is qualified and I like her but make no mistake, this is affirmative action and discrimination.

"Make no mistake"?

That's just silly.

Do you understand what Affirmative Action is? Cleary, you do not.

This is just a silly thing to say, @noonereal.

 

[ultmd]

Nice try - your own confused and distorted opinions are the only thing in play here.

....says the guy who can't articulate a single cogent critique of the KBJ appointment, except to whine that the Dems used the VERY SAME talking points that the GOPers used to defend FAR LESS QUALIFIED republican nominees over the last several years.

The difference between your opinions, and mine is clear. Mine can be (and have been) backed up with FACTS. Yours are just empty, ignorant FEELINGS.

But it's a free country, and you are entitled to them, nonetheless. And I'm free to laugh at them for being ignorant attempts to disguise what tend to be the less-than-honorable feelings and emotions that dictate the ideology of people like you.

 

[noonereal]

What?


"Make no mistake"?

That's just silly.

Do you understand what Affirmative Action is? Cleary, you do not.

This is just a silly thing to say, @noonereal.

I suggest you look up the definition, seriously. The definition fits perfectly.
I did not pick a term from the air as a Trumpist would have.
Would you prefer to call it discrimination?

He sure has hell would be if you only considered what makes.

As to the 7%, do you really not know what I am talking about? Is it possible?

 

[Bullseye]

....says the guy who can't articulate a single cogent critique of the KBJ appointment, except to whine that the Dems used the VERY SAME talking points that the GOPers used to defend FAR LESS QUALIFIED republican nominees over the last several years.

You just make crap up, don't you?

The difference between your opinions, and mine is clear. Mine can be (and have been) backed up with FACTS. Yours are just empty, ignorant FEELINGS.

Yeah, mine aren't blind partisan rambling and personal insults.

But it's a free country, and you are entitled to them, nonetheless. And I'm free to laugh at them for being ignorant attempts to disguise what tend to be the less-than-honorable feelings and emotions that dictate the ideology of people like you.

You're also free to blather idiotically and baselessly - and you take full advantage of that right.

 

[ultmd]

I suggest you look up the definition, seriously. The definition fits perfectly.

What "definition" are you talking about, and how does it "fit perfectly" in your mind?

I'm well aware of what AA is, and what it is NOT. I suggest you look up the Presidential E.O's beginning with JFK and expanded most by Nixon) that created and defined Affirmative Action in word and deed.

I did not pick a term from the air as a Trumpist would have.

OK....so let's talk specifics.

Let's talk "best qualified".
Were Amy Coney Barrett and Clarence Thomas, who rank as BY FAR the least-qualified and least experienced candidates to be elevated to the Supreme Court....also Affirmative Action" appointments in your mind?

Let's talk "discrimination".

• Was it "discrimination" when Trump immediately (within 24 hours) announced his intent to choose a conservative woman from a list provided to him by the Federalist Society....to replace Ruth Bader Ginsberg?
• Was it "discrimination" when Ronald Reagan declared, in advance (i.e. during the 1980 presidential campaign) his intention to pick a female (Sandra Day O'Connor) to the Court.
• If you believe so (to the above), please explain the opposition to Brown-Jackson's nomination by GOPers today.

Let's talk about what "meritocracy" really means to some people.

• The Constitution does not list gender, race, religion, attendance/graduation from law school, nor even citizenship status as requirements to become a USSC Justice. Never has.
• And yet, for the first 200 years of this country, EVER single USSC Justice was white and male.
• In that same 200 years, only 6 Catholics and 5 Jews (all male, of course) were selected to serve on the Court.
• Since 1981, there have been 5 females elevated to the Court (2 white, 1 brown, 2 Jewish).
• And yet, despite the FACT that at no point in our history has it EVER been illegal for a non-white, non-male, non-protestant American to serve on the USSC....."somehow" those in power in this country determined that the most qualified choice was a white male in EVERY occasion until 1967....and male until 1981.

So question #1 for you is this: Do you honestly believe that "MERIT" has EVER truly been a relevant criteria in determining which Americans are chosen to become USSC Justices? Or, is the TRUTH that the single-greatest "merit" was (then as now) the "merit" of being white and male in the eyes of other white males empowered to extend such opportunities?

The simple FACT is that, throughout our history, the USSC has mirrored American society has a whole, in that it has LITERALLY been a real-time experiment in AFFIRMATIVE ACTION for WHITE MEN.

Let's talk HISTORY and Hypocrisy.

• The entire history of the USSC shows that there have been 115 Justices appointed, thus far. Jackson stands be become the 116th. Of those, 110 have been men. And, of those 110 men, 108 have been WHITE men.
• Not ONCE in the entire post-Civil Rights era of the Court, has there been ANY talk about "qualifications" or "discrimination", etc.....when the nominee has been white and male. That "debate" ONLY arises when the nominee is a non-white, non-male and non-conservative American.

• So, here is question #2 for you: Do you honestly believe it coincidental that the ONLY time we ever talk about "qualifications", "discrimination", etc.....is when (and ONLY when) a particular candidate is black, brown and/or female?

Would you prefer to call it discrimination?

Why? Please explain.

• Reagan announced (DURING THE 1980 CAMPAIGN) his intent to select a female with his very first opportunity to fill a seat on SCOTUS.
• Bush '41 announced in advance, his intent to select a "minority" to succeed the late, great Thurgood Marshall.
• Trump announcced, in advance, his intent to select a female replacement for RBG.

I've been an educated voter throughout all of the above nominations, and NOT ONCE did I see or hear about ANY concerns about "discrimination" from GOPers when those hardcore conservatives were nominated.

Can you explain that for me?

He sure has hell would be if you only considered what makes.

"...makes" what, exactly? And who is "he"?

I have no idea what you are talking about here. Please clarify.

As to the 7%, do you really not know what I am talking about?

Yes, really. What in the world does 7% have to do with anything we are discussing?

No need to respond if it intended as an aside. I'm just trying to follow your arguments and that one made no sense to me.