• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ketanji Brown Jackson is the most popular Supreme Court nominee in years

I don't even think they should be allowed in serious threads. It's an insult to thinking people.

Since there are very few such threads, it wouldn't make much difference.
 
Since there are very few such threads, it wouldn't make much difference.
There could be a "no memes" sub forum or something. It doesn't particularly matter. I just feel like most people who communicate in memes are Twitter types; and I despise Twitter.
 
I don't believe the Supreme Court nomination is influenced by popular support.

Her credentials and resume are outstanding, and i agree with the way she has handled the circus with professionalism and class. She seems to be a cool customer not easily swayed by what's poplar at the moment.

Its neither here nor there to me her gender or what box she ticks for HR on the race question.
 
wow, now that clown in the video is really the sort of commentator that matters to me. he doesn't have a clue about what counts as relevant experience. and he is lying. He concedes she might have a LSAT score a "little above average"

This guy is worthless as a source of an opinion-and I have seen some of his other nonsense.

what bullshit. Most experienced supreme court nominee in history? He certainly had a long run on the court of appeals. but the most experienced in history?
Interesting response.
 
Found it, was a youtube video where it was claimed, and I quote "There is literally nobody, sitting on the supreme court, that has her wide range of legal experience."

I misremembered it as "more experience".

This video, to be precise:


Wow, it sounds so authoritative. No wonder you were convinced.
 
He's got 15,000 posts.

You have 2,300 posts.

If he's inexperienced, what does that make you ?

Someone who really doesn't have an answer to his post.
That doesn’t begin to count the tally that goes back to the pre-internet, dial-up modem, CompuServe days. 😉
 
“Not in this context. I’m not a biologist,” Jackson said.

She didn't take Blackburn's bait.
This is 100% correct. It was an extremely dumb question asked.

There's no legal definition of woman. In fact, the constitution doesn't mention the word one time.

We live in a world where people can define man and woman differently. Some say it's purely sociological. Some say it's purely biological, pertaining to ones genitals and sex chromosomes. Others will argue it be defined both socially and biologically. Think of the word Mom and Dad, Brother and Sister for example.

KBJ is running for Supreme Court, not supreme biologist or supreme sociologist. It is her job to settle legal disputes. If the definition of woman came in question, she would have to hear both arguments and figure out how it would fit into the legal dispute. Cruz and Blackburn never explained the context on what defining woman would need a definitive answer. It was an obvious bait question.
 
I am glad she's popular among the American people. KBJ and I disagree on a lot of issues. She's a liberal. I am a moderate-to-conservative. But her resume is pretty good. Outstanding record at Harvard. Worked for four years on the U.S Sentencing Commission. She was a district judge for 8 years, and for the past year, worked in the appellate court.
 
He's got 15,000 posts.

You have 2,300 posts.

If he's inexperienced, what does that make you ?

Someone who really doesn't have an answer to his post.

That only tells me he's got more experience posting drivel. I have more experience making quality posts.

Quality, not just quantity.
 
Don't let him derail the thread.

The subject of the thread is that she is the most popular in recent history.

Now, given:

Given the strong partisan divisions in the country and the lack of useful information from the MSM, it's not surprising at all.

And the question has to be.

Who really cares.

Once she's on the bench, she's on the bench.

Good grief.

We let Sotomeyer on.

Talk about setting the bar low.

At least she doesn't just make up doctrine out of thin air like...pretty much all the conservative justices on the court. I will say that I am occasionally moderately impressed with Gorsuch and Roberts, both of whom at least seem occasionally - once a year, maybe - coming up with a decision that looks as though they actually considered court doctrine and the original intent of the Constitution. Sotomayor is consistent in her positions, and she uses doctrine and other evidence to support them.
 
The woman can't define woman.
She chose not to define the term in the context of Blackburn's stupid question. A very smart move for a judge who will likely have a case involving the transgendered before her. She is exceptionally bright and astute especially compared to Blackburn's stupid and blatant attempt to catch her......a swing and a miss.
 
She chose not to define the term in the context of Blackburn's stupid question. A very smart move for a judge who will likely have a case involving the transgendered before her. She is exceptionally bright and astute especially compared to Blackburn's stupid and blatant attempt to catch her......a swing and a miss.
That’s one perspective. That that line will come to haunt her the rest of her time on the bench is another.
 
That’s one perspective. That that line will come to haunt her the rest of her time on the bench is another.
I very much doubt that.
 
At least she doesn't just make up doctrine out of thin air like...pretty much all the conservative justices on the court. I will say that I am occasionally moderately impressed with Gorsuch and Roberts, both of whom at least seem occasionally - once a year, maybe - coming up with a decision that looks as though they actually considered court doctrine and the original intent of the Constitution. Sotomayor is consistent in her positions, and she uses doctrine and other evidence to support them.
WTF???
 
277229697_10228349497069361_2525133602721868312_n.jpg
 
That’s one perspective. That that line will come to haunt her the rest of her time on the bench is another.
If that's the line that haunts her, will mean, that's the worse the MAGA's can come up with, sorta like 57 states "haunted Obama. 😄😃😀
 
Back
Top Bottom