Justice Ketanji Jackson's faulty claim in affirmative action case takes another hit as lawyers 'clarify' brief

[Anthony60]

This is what happens when you make diversity hires on the Supreme Court. She is challenging Sotomayor for the dumbest Justice title. Neither of them are anywhere near qualified to be on the court. She should have let Thomas check her work before handing it in. Just imagine how the hundreds of more qualified judges feel, that were skipped over, seeing her on the court.


Justice Ketanji Jackson's faulty claim
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has faced scrutiny for making a flawed claim about Black infant mortality under White doctors in her dissenting opinion to last week's landmark affirmative action decision.

Jackson sought to show that race-based admissions are a matter of life and death for racial minorities, and her dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court's ruling on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard cited an example. The law firm apparently responsible for the misleading statement sought to "clarify" the claim on Friday.

Seeking to show that considering race in admissions was fair and realizes equality, Jackson argued in her dissent that diversity "saves lives" and is essential for "marginalized communities." She asserted that diversity is for the "betterment" of students and society at large beyond college campuses.

 

[SMTA]

Quoting Faux Noise makes for a stupid, worthless post.

 

[MTAtech]

This is what happens when you make diversity hires on the Supreme Court. She is challenging Sotomayor for the dumbest Justice title. Neither of them are anywhere near qualified to be on the court. She should have let Thomas check her work before handing it in. Just imagine how the hundreds of more qualified judges feel, that were skipped over, seeing her on the court.


Justice Ketanji Jackson's faulty claim
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has faced scrutiny for making a flawed claim about Black infant mortality under White doctors in her dissenting opinion to last week's landmark affirmative action decision.

Jackson sought to show that race-based admissions are a matter of life and death for racial minorities, and her dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court's ruling on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard cited an example. The law firm apparently responsible for the misleading statement sought to "clarify" the claim on Friday.

Seeking to show that considering race in admissions was fair and realizes equality, Jackson argued in her dissent that diversity "saves lives" and is essential for "marginalized communities." She asserted that diversity is for the "betterment" of students and society at large beyond college campuses.

It’s always amusing when some guy on the internet calls Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who graduated from Harvard and Harvard Law school “dumb”.

 

[ashurbanipal]

This is what happens when you make diversity hires on the Supreme Court. She is challenging Sotomayor for the dumbest Justice title. Neither of them are anywhere near qualified to be on the court. She should have let Thomas check her work before handing it in. Just imagine how the hundreds of more qualified judges feel, that were skipped over, seeing her on the court.


Justice Ketanji Jackson's faulty claim
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has faced scrutiny for making a flawed claim about Black infant mortality under White doctors in her dissenting opinion to last week's landmark affirmative action decision.

Jackson sought to show that race-based admissions are a matter of life and death for racial minorities, and her dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court's ruling on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard cited an example. The law firm apparently responsible for the misleading statement sought to "clarify" the claim on Friday.

Seeking to show that considering race in admissions was fair and realizes equality, Jackson argued in her dissent that diversity "saves lives" and is essential for "marginalized communities." She asserted that diversity is for the "betterment" of students and society at large beyond college campuses.

It sounds to me like what the law firm in question is saying, is that Brown Jackson's claim may be technically not quite what they were saying, but still pretty close. From your cited article:

Still, the lawyer added that the study nonetheless supports Jackson's argument in her dissent, expressing "regret" for "any confusion" that may have been caused by the statement in its brief.

The problem identified by the firm filing the amicus brief on which Brown-Jackson relied is that Brown Jackson's claims are couched in terms of survival, while the study looked at mortality rates. The study does indeed show that mortality of black infants is reduced by half when under the care of a black doctor as compared to doctors of other races. I can think of some ways where that fact wouldn't quite imply that survival rates under the same circumstances double, but most people are going to think of those as the same thing.

In short, this criticism is rather like saying that she didn't put a comma where it was supposed to go or something along those lines. Hardly a "gotcha" moment...interestingly, the line wherein the law firm clarifies its claims in its amicus brief to point out that the data still supports Brown Jackson's argument is nine paragraphs in...which is probably nine more paragraphs than you read in the story you cited.

 

[Helix]

faux.

 

[Anthony60]

Wow, "shoot the messenger", right off the bat! Struck a nerve.
Really, just want to get this out there. You lefties stand up for these appointments, and here she is, failing, as predicted. Of course, she wants people advanced based on race, that's how we got stuck with her on the court.

 

[Taylor]

The study, however, finds that black infants have a 99.6 percent survival rate with black doctors and a 99.8 percent survival rate with white doctors. What Jackson misinterpreted when she claimed that the black infant survival rate “doubles” with a black doctor is the discrepancy that more white doctors are in Neonatal intensive care units (NICU), where babies are less likely to survive. If a black baby has a black doctor, it’s likely because that baby is not in a NICU, which of course yields higher survival rates.

 

[SMTA]

Wow, "shoot the messenger", right off the bat! Struck a nerve.
Really, just want to get this out there. You lefties stand up for these appointments, and here she is, failing, as predicted. Of course, she wants people advanced based on race, that's how we got stuck with her on the court.

When you repeat the message, you then own the message.
Welcome to adulthood, responsibility and accountability required

 

[anatta]

This is what happens when you make diversity hires on the Supreme Court. She is challenging Sotomayor for the dumbest Justice title. Neither of them are anywhere near qualified to be on the court. She should have let Thomas check her work before handing it in. Just imagine how the hundreds of more qualified judges feel, that were skipped over, seeing her on the court.


Justice Ketanji Jackson's faulty claim
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has faced scrutiny for making a flawed claim about Black infant mortality under White doctors in her dissenting opinion to last week's landmark affirmative action decision.

Jackson sought to show that race-based admissions are a matter of life and death for racial minorities, and her dissenting opinion in the Supreme Court's ruling on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard cited an example. The law firm apparently responsible for the misleading statement sought to "clarify" the claim on Friday.

Seeking to show that considering race in admissions was fair and realizes equality, Jackson argued in her dissent that diversity "saves lives" and is essential for "marginalized communities." She asserted that diversity is for the "betterment" of students and society at large beyond college campuses.

racial diversity is fine, but not a goal to itself. diversity of ideas is crucial and so far Brown has been lacking in any original ideas except "diversity/equity" and the usual leftists blandishments on how to get those

 

[Anthony60]

It sounds to me like what the law firm in question is saying, is that Brown Jackson's claim may be technically not quite what they were saying, but still pretty close. From your cited article:

Oh, they support her 100%, they are all in. Even so, they felt they had to say something, and they did it as softly as they possibly could. Even they couldn't let it slide.

 

[ashurbanipal]

The study, however, finds that black infants have a 99.6 percent survival rate with black doctors and a 99.8 percent survival rate with white doctors. What Jackson misinterpreted when she claimed that the black infant survival rate “doubles” with a black doctor is the discrepancy that more white doctors are in Neonatal intensive care units (NICU), where babies are less likely to survive. If a black baby has a black doctor, it’s likely because that baby is not in a NICU, which of course yields higher survival rates.

What is the source of this quote? It doesn't appear to be from the Fox article. My browser doesn't find the language in your post there, at any rate, and I don't see anything like it in the article.

 

[Anthony60]

When you repeat the message, you then own the message.
Welcome to adulthood, responsibility and accountability required

LOL! You know that shooting the messenger is a desperate tactic of those that can't make a valid point, but are grasping at anything to try and discredit something in a misleading way? Well, I guess you don't.

It's anything but adulthood, responsibility, or accountability. Let us know when you get there, because your post shows that you are in the same basket as that crowd.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Oh, they support her 100%, they are all in. Even so, they felt they had to say something, and they did it as softly as they possibly could. Even they couldn't let it slide.

It seems to me that you (and Fox) go way too far. They didn't say something in a soft manner. What they said wasn't that big a criticism of Brown Jackson's argument. Their clarification would imply a minor adjustment to her claim--not that her claim is refuted or even substantially undermined.

The cited study does indeed support the claim that black babies have better odds of survival if they have a black doctor as compared to doctors of other races. We could argue over whether or not it's really 100 more babies a year that would survive nationwide, or only 50, but when we're talking about human lives I'm not so sure such quantitative focus is the only important issue at hand. Even if the difference were fewer than that, it'd still be important.

 

[Anthony60]

What is the source of this quote? It doesn't appear to be from the Fox article. My browser doesn't find the language in your post there, at any rate, and I don't see anything like it in the article.

The amicus brief filed with the court? The letter to the court? Her actual flawed dissent?

 

[Anthony60]

It seems to me that you (and Fox) go way too far. They didn't say something in a soft manner. What they said wasn't that big a criticism of Brown Jackson's argument. Their clarification would imply a minor adjustment to her claim--not that her claim is refuted or even substantially undermined.

The cited study does indeed support the claim that black babies have better odds of survival if they have a black doctor as compared to doctors of other races. We could argue over whether or not it's really 100 more babies a year that would survive nationwide, or only 50, but when we're talking about human lives I'm not so sure such quantitative focus is the only important issue at hand. Even if the difference were fewer than that, it'd still be important.

No, not minor, she was way, way off. Survival rate is above 99% She said it doubled. To what? 198%? That's a pretty glaring error.

 

[ashurbanipal]

The amicus brief filed with the court? The letter to the court? Her actual flawed dissent?

Well...since my post was in response to another poster who seemed to be quoting something, I assumed that other poster would know the source they quoted, and I await response from that poster. I'm not sure why you post these three questions in a row back to me. Heck if I know what Taylor was quoting. I wouldn't have asked if I knew the source of the quote.

 

[ashurbanipal]

No, not minor, she was way, way off. Survival rate is above 99% She said it doubled. To what? 198%? That's a pretty glaring error.

She was presumably talking about relative rate and not absolute rate, which is what you're talking about here (and what the Fox article was talking about). Again, I can think of some ways that relative survival rate wouldn't be implied to double if mortality rates halved, though that remains the most likely implication.

 

[Anthony60]

She was presumably talking about relative rate and not absolute rate, which is what you're talking about here (and what the Fox article was talking about). Again, I can think of some ways that relative survival rate wouldn't be implied to double if mortality rates halved, though that remains the most likely implication.

She's just not doing very well as a Justice.

 

[weaver2]

Wow, "shoot the messenger", right off the bat! Struck a nerve.
Really, just want to get this out there. You lefties stand up for these appointments, and here she is, failing, as predicted. Of course, she wants people advanced based on race, that's how we got stuck with her on the court.

Could you be just a bit more racist, please I didn't quite get the full flavor of your denigration.

 

[dcsports]

It sounds to me like what the law firm in question is saying, is that Brown Jackson's claim may be technically not quite what they were saying, but still pretty close. From your cited article:

They were being kind.

The problem identified by the firm filing the amicus brief on which Brown-Jackson relied is that Brown Jackson's claims are couched in terms of survival, while the study looked at mortality rates. The study does indeed show that mortality of black infants is reduced by half when under the care of a black doctor as compared to doctors of other races. I can think of some ways where that fact wouldn't quite imply that survival rates under the same circumstances double, but most people are going to think of those as the same thing.

In short, this criticism is rather like saying that she didn't put a comma where it was supposed to go or something along those lines. Hardly a "gotcha" moment...interestingly, the line wherein the law firm clarifies its claims in its amicus brief to point out that the data still supports Brown Jackson's argument is nine paragraphs in...which is probably nine more paragraphs than you read in the story you cited.

It's not a grammatical error, but a profound error in logic - one that she or her clerks should have caught. And actually, it was TWO errors in logic. One that a 0.13%=0.2% increase in the survival rate is double (with the survival rate over 99%), but that the study only found that among newborns with black pediatricians - and no significant change for black obstetricians.

"The study makes no such claims. It examines mortality rates in Florida newborns between 1992 and 2015 and shows a 0.13% to 0.2% improvement in survival rates for Black newborns with Black pediatricians (though no statistically significant improvement for black obstetricians)," Frank wrote.

 

[dcsports]

She was presumably talking about relative rate and not absolute rate, which is what you're talking about here (and what the Fox article was talking about). Again, I can think of some ways that relative survival rate wouldn't be implied to double if mortality rates halved, though that remains the most likely implication.

What do you mean by 'relative rate'?

The mortality rate in the US is 5.6 deaths per 1000 live births. That's 99.94%. You cannot double a 99% survival rate.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

She's just not doing very well as a Justice.

This is the type of post that keeps me coming back here.

The firm (and delusional) belief that you're in a position to judge.

 

[dcsports]

It seems to me that you (and Fox) go way too far. They didn't say something in a soft manner. What they said wasn't that big a criticism of Brown Jackson's argument. Their clarification would imply a minor adjustment to her claim--not that her claim is refuted or even substantially undermined.

The cited study does indeed support the claim that black babies have better odds of survival if they have a black doctor as compared to doctors of other races. We could argue over whether or not it's really 100 more babies a year that would survive nationwide, or only 50, but when we're talking about human lives I'm not so sure such quantitative focus is the only important issue at hand. Even if the difference were fewer than that, it'd still be important.

A study that cited less than a 0.2% improvement for newborns based on pediatrician. (Not 'doctor' - as they showed no statistical difference based on the race of the obstetrician).

 

[Anthony60]

Could you be just a bit more racist, please I didn't quite get the full flavor of your denigration.

Wow, that was a lame try at playing the race card.

 

[Anthony60]

This is the type of post that keeps me coming back here.
The firm (and delusional) belief that you're in a position to judge.

Yes, I am. Everyone she serves is. That is quite a ridiculous statement.