[W:#9]Congrats Supreme Court Justice Jackson

[ultmd]

more lies. find one post of mine where any fair minded person could claim I hate blacks.

...

I've got a better idea for you.

If you HONESTLY believe that your reputation around here is NOT that of "white-grievance"....post a thread (so all can see it) and ask for honest opinions.

I don't think you have the stones to do that. And we both know why.

Rather the woke left says such crap because they cannot actually formulate legitimate arguments.

...says the white-grievance dude who STILL can't formulate even ONE objective, verifiable, FACT-based argument in support of his criticism of KBJ's resume/credentials for the Supreme Court.

We both know that, between the two of us, I've posted ALL of the facts and credible arguments....and you've posted nothing but ignorant, white-grievance FEELINGS and EMOTIONS.

You're so blinded by your ideology that you can't see your own hypocrisy.

 

[TurtleDude]

...

I've got a better idea for you.

If you HONESTLY believe that your reputation around here is NOT that of "white-grievance"....post a thread (so all can see it) and ask for honest opinions.

I don't think you have the stones to do that. And we both know why.



...says the white-grievance dude who STILL can't formulate even ONE objective, verifiable, FACT-based argument in support of his criticism of KBJ's resume/credentials for the Supreme Court.

We both know that, between the two of us, I've posted ALL of the facts and credible arguments....and you've posted nothing but ignorant, white-grievance FEELINGS and EMOTIONS.

You're so blinded by your ideology that you can't see your own hypocrisy.

this board leans left-I would expect that a bunch of lefties will say this because they are dishonest and have been proven to lie. I would expect those who lean left would deny it. And you are dishonest when you claim I cannot fathom an argument against her appointment. I can and it is based on what Biden did-he eliminated the vast majority of the most qualified candidates.

Do you claim this woman was at the very top of her law school class? do you claim she has had years of experience as a federal appellate judge? IS she seen as a major league constitutional scholar as Barrett is?

 

[ultmd]

I pity you.

...not you don't. If anything, you fear me, because people like me discredit the ignorant beliefs of people like you..

So I don't pity people like you at all.

I laugh at and mock white-grievance types, with all of your rigid, rightwing feelings and beliefs that you never can seem to back up with objective FACTS and/or cogent, well-reasoned dialogue.

You're so hateful toward anything that challenges what your told believe.

PROJECTION Alert!

Of course, we both know where the "hate" actually originates. We see it comes from you and people like you. As for me, what you "hate" is that I'm right about you (and your arguments).....you know it.....and you can't do a damn thing about it.

 

[ultmd]

this board leans left-I would expect that a bunch of lefties will say this because they are dishonest and have been proven to lie.

I would expect those who lean left would deny it.

....the words of a paranoid, perpetually aggrieved rightwinger.

This board "leans left", huh? There's a left-wing conspiracy around every corner, I suppose?

So now, apparently, the board is too "lefty" to trust the opinions of it's members, huh?

So...then what was with the silly challenge to ask "fair minded people" (according to your definition of "fair minded", of course) if you "hate black people"?

Make up your mind, man!

This is exactly why your original challenge (i.e. to have me search through your earliest posts from 2+ years ago)...was so silly.

And you are dishonest when you claim I cannot fathom an argument against her appointment. I can and it is based on what Biden did-he eliminated the vast majority of the most qualified candidates.

That DUMB and DISHONEST argument is discredited every time you (and people like you) go SILENT in response to questions about why you said NOTHING when Trump announced BEFORE his selection of Barrett that he was going to choose a female....or when Bush'41 chose Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall......or when Reagan announce that he was going to choose a female BEFORE he nominated Sandra Day O'Connor.

Trump's SCOTUS appointees were 100% white, and were (by ALL objective criteria) NO ONE'S idea of the "most qualified" candidates available. Gorsuch was a quality (though extremely conservative) candidate. Kavanaugh was (and still is) morally and temperamentally unfit for the position, as we all know. And Barrett was just simply a case of conservative/evangelical Affirmative Action, as she was NO ONE's idea of "most qualified". The number of federal judges with better resumes than Barrett is easily in the triple digits. Her primary qualifications were: (1) female (and white, of course)....and (2) right-wing Evangelical.

But that's not all.

Donald Trump's federal judicial appointees were comprised of 85% white and 78% men. His 4 (failed) years in office literally reversed a 30 year trend in which every successive president had appointed a more diverse and more qualified group to the federal bench than his predecessor. And, at the same time, Donald Trump appointed MORE "Not Qualified" candidates to the federal bench than EVERY previous president in the last half-century! In summary, Trump's judges were MORE WHITE and LESS FEMALE than any president in the last 30 years.

And yet, NOT ONCE did you (or anyone like you) EVER express ANY concern about the make up or qualifications of the right wingers Trump appointed to life-time positions on the federal bench.

So again...."most qualified" is just a LYING argument from you people. You CLEARLY don't give a rat's butt about "most qualified"...unless the candidate is (1) black/brown and/or (2) left-of-center ideologically.

Heck, you people have proven, over and over and over again, that you will EAGERLY and ENTHUSIATICALLY accept "NOT QUALIFIED", as long as the candidate shares your ideology.

Do you claim this woman was at the very top of her law school class?

....you're trying too hard, my friend. Now you're goin to reduce your argument to "very top of her class", huh?

Re-read my remarks. and stop trying to move the goalpost every time you find yourself unable to defend your previous argument.

 

[ultmd]

Here is what I "claim". Next time try rebutting it rather than deflecting from it, if you dare:

Justice Brown Jackson graduated SUMMA CUM LAUDE from Harvard undergrad, and CUM LAUDE from Harvard Law, and she was selected Managing Editor of the Harvard Law Review.

In comparison:
-Gorsuch: Columbia University (cum laude), Harvard Law (cum laude)....[his classmate, Barack Obama graduated MAGNA Cum laude that same year]
-Alito: Princeton University (summa cum laude), Yale Law (no honors)
-Coney Barrett: Rhodes College (magna cum laude), Notre Dame Law (summa cum laude)
-Thomas: Holy Cross (cum laude), Yale (no honors, bottom 50% of his class)
-Kavanaugh: Yale (cum laude), Yale Law (no honors)
-Roberts: Harvard College (summa cum laude), Harvard Law (magna cum laude), Law Review Managing Editor
-Kagan: Princeton (Summa cum laude), Harvard Law (magna cum laude), Editor Harvard Law Review
-Sotomayor: Princeton (Summa cum laude), Yale Law (no honors)

And, in direct comparison with Amy Coney Barrett, I've said this:

What we know is:
Harvard College (KBJ) > Rhodes College (Barrett)
Harvard Law (KBJ) > ND Law (Barrett).....and
Managing Editor Harvard Law Review (KBJ) > editor ND Law Review (Barrett).....and
25 years of experience as a public defender, prosecutor, private corporate attorney, director of the US Sentencing Commission and federal judge (KBJ) > 20 years teaching at a sub-Top 20 Law School (Barrett)

My claim is that KBJ is the most qualified (academically and professionally) candidate in recent history.....and, she is, by far, more objectively qualified than any conservative Justice on the current court (with the possible exception of Roberts), by far.

I've laid out that argument, in some detail, already.

You, on the other hand....,have NOTHING to offer in rebuttal other than your own feelings and emotions.

do you claim she has had years of experience as a federal appellate judge?

...more of the same shifting of goal posts, I see. Now, suddenly,APPELLATE court is the "key", huh? But, tell us.....why the focus on "appellate judge", rather than total judicial experience???

Hmm......

Clearly, your focus has been made clear. You are trying to compare KBJ to ACB...but that, too, is a fool's errand, my friend.

Let's create an accurate (i.e. rather than superficial and selective) comparison between the two, ONE MORE TIME, shall we?
ACB:

• -less than 3 years on the DC Federal Court of Appeals
• -20 years teaching at a sub-top-20 law school
• -LITERALLY nothing else....she'd never even set foot in a courtroom (as a practicing attorney) in her LIFE, before being leapfrogged to the DC Court a few years ago.

KBJ:

• -less than 1 year on the DC Federal Court of Appeals
• -8+ years on the Federal District Court of DC
• -4 years on the United States Sentencing Commission
• -10 years divided between....private legal practice.....prosecutor....federal public defender

By ANY objective standard of measurement (including years on the federal bench) KBJ's resume crushes ACB's. And by ANY objective standard of measurement, KBJ's academic credentials crush ACB's.

These simply are NOT arguments you can rebut.

Sorry if that bothers you.

IS she seen as a major league constitutional scholar as Barrett is?

....WTF is a "major league" constitutional scholar...and who makes that call, huh?

ACB's name is NO ONE's list of preeminent Constitutional scholars.

Please, give some quotes and links to this b.s. (so I can have a nice laugh).

That just might be the DUMBEST thing I've seen on this board in a while, @TurtleDude

That said, the ONLY thing Amy Coney Barrett is considered a "major league scholar" of is.....interpreting every aspect of common law in terms of her own personal Christian identity. No respected Constitutional scholars in this country....NONE....are including the name of ACB as one of the foremost scholars of the U.S. Constitution. NO ONE.

 

[TurtleDude]

Here is what I "claim". Next time try rebutting it rather than deflecting from it, if you dare:


And, in direct comparison with Amy Coney Barrett, I've said this:


My claim is that KBJ is the most qualified (academically and professionally) candidate in recent history.....and, she is, by far, more objectively qualified than any conservative Justice on the current court (with the possible exception of Roberts), by far.

I've laid out that argument, in some detail, already.

You, on the other hand....,have NOTHING to offer in rebuttal other than your own feelings and emotions.


...more of the same shifting of goal posts, I see. Now, suddenly,APPELLATE court is the "key", huh? But, tell us.....why the focus on "appellate judge", rather than total judicial experience???

Hmm......

Clearly, your focus has been made clear. You are trying to compare KBJ to ACB...but that, too, is a fool's errand, my friend.

Let's create an accurate (i.e. rather than superficial and selective) comparison between the two, ONE MORE TIME, shall we?
ACB:

• -less than 3 years on the DC Federal Court of Appeals
• -20 years teaching at a sub-top-20 law school
• -LITERALLY nothing else....she'd never even set foot in a courtroom (as a practicing attorney) in her LIFE, before being leapfrogged to the DC Court a few years ago.

KBJ:

• -less than 1 year on the DC Federal Court of Appeals
• -8+ years on the Federal District Court of DC
• -4 years on the United States Sentencing Commission
• -10 years divided between....private legal practice.....prosecutor....federal public defender

By ANY objective standard of measurement (including years on the federal bench) KBJ's resume crushes ACB's. And by ANY objective standard of measurement, KBJ's academic credentials crush ACB's.

These simply are NOT arguments you can rebut.

Sorry if that bothers you.


....WTF is a "major league" constitutional scholar...and who makes that call, huh?

ACB's name is NO ONE's list of preeminent Constitutional scholars.

Please, give some quotes and links to this b.s. (so I can have a nice laugh).

That just might be the DUMBEST thing I've seen on this board in a while, @TurtleDude

That said, the ONLY thing Amy Coney Barrett is considered a "major league scholar" of is.....interpreting every aspect of common law in terms of her own personal Christian identity. No respected Constitutional scholars in this country....NONE....are including the name of ACB as one of the foremost scholars of the U.S. Constitution. NO ONE.

Jackson did not graduate summa cum laude from Harvard college-she graduated Magna cum Laude. Given how many people Harvard bestows honors on-it doesnt' mean all that much. It means she most likely was in the top 35% but at one time it was higher than that

Harvard's dirty, little secret is out -- grade inflation /...

Since the Vietnam era, rampant grade inflation has made its top prize for students --...

www.sfgate.com

Last June, a record 91 percent of Harvard students graduated summa, magna, or cum laude, far more than at Yale (51 percent), Princeton (44 percent) and other elite universities, a Globe study has found.

While the world regards these students as the best of the best of America's 13 million undergraduates, Harvard honors has actually become the laughingstock of the Ivy League. The other Ivies see Harvard as the Lake Wobegon of higher education, where all the students, being above average, can take honors for granted.

Barrett was the best student in THIRTY years at Notre Dame. Your claim that because a student goes to a higher ranked school that means they are more intelligent or a better student than someone who goes to a lower ranked school is idiotic. It's akin to saying anyone who starts on the Duke Basketball team has to be a better player than even the best player in history who say played on the Princeton team
who are these constitutional scholars you claim put down ACB? her works have been cited by the UVa, Columbia, NYU and Cornell Law reviews. those are major league law schools

 

[ataraxia]

He can believe whatever he wants. It's about his opinion of people that dont share his opinions that is hateful and bitter.

It's Ok to be contemptuous of people who sabotage all the selfless efforts of so doctors and nurses, and discredit all the breathtaking achievements and innovations of the entire scientific community, endangering and destorying so many lives and damaging the economy, only to promote the self interest of some ignorant real estate huckster and narcissistic showman only out to promote himself at any cost.

 

[ultmd]

Jackson did not graduate summa cum laude from Harvard college-she graduated Magna cum Laude. Given how many people Harvard bestows honors on-it doesnt' mean all that much.

This is more ignorant b.s from you. You keep spitting out ignorant b.s., and I'll keep slapping you in the face with the FACTS.

• Harvard U. is Harvard U. Rhodes College (ranked #179) is not Harvard. Never has been. Never will be.
• Harvard Law is Harvard Law. Notre Dame Law is not Harvard Law. Never has been. Never will be.

And as stated previously, Harvard changed their grading system over 20 years ago. Magna cum laude is reserved for the top 10% of the class. Below that, the next 35% are granted Cum Laude status. That's ON PAR with almost every other top undergraduate in the country.

As for the issue of grade inflation....the FACT is that Harvard and Notre Dame are both ranked in the top 20 among schools whose students benefit from "grade inflation".

So......would you like to try again? The above is another FAIL for you.

It means she most likely was in the top 35% but at one time it was higher than that

More stupidity.

You can't seem to separate your FEELINGS from the objective truth.

KBJ's resume put ACB's to shame, at EVERY turn...by ANY objective standard you may wish to consider.

Deal with it.

Harvard's dirty, little secret is out -- grade inflation /...

Since the Vietnam era, rampant grade inflation has made its top prize for students --...

www.sfgate.com

.....That was 22 years ago. Tell me...why didn't you post a more recent article, huh? You won't say it, so I'll say it for you.

Because, perhaps, you know what Harvard did 20 YEARS AGO (i.e. 2 years after that report came out)?

Harvard changed its grading system. As of just a few years ago, the average Harvard GPA was 3.6, compared to the average Notre Dame GPA of 3.5. Both ranked in the top 20 in the country for grade inflation.

Again....FACTS matter. TRUTH matters. You and people like you don't care about that. But people like me do.

Just admit it, @TurtleDude .....you hate the KBJ nomination for reasons that have NOTHING to do with credentials, experience or intelligence. You hate it (and her) for reasons that are entirely cultural, racial and ideological.

Most decent people can see that. I am quite sure of it.

Barrett was the best student in THIRTY years at Notre Dame.

Bullshit. Same song, second verse.

Says whom? Based upon what? According to what objective standard is Barrett "the best student in 30 years" at that 2nd tier law school she attended?

This is the second time you've repeated this MORONIC claim. I asked you to back it up with FACTS the last time, but you couldn't do it.

And you won't do it now, either. Because you can't.

The OPINIONS and FEELINGS of people like you simply do NOT count in fact-based discussion, my friend.

Your claim that because a student goes to a higher ranked school that means they are more intelligent or a better student than someone who goes to a lower ranked school is idiotic.

Dumb comment.

I neither stated, nor suggested, any such thing. Here is my "claim" (once again):

My claim is that KBJ is the most qualified (academically and professionally) candidate in recent history.....and, she is, by far, more objectively qualified than any conservative Justice on the current court (with the possible exception of Roberts), by far.

I have no interest in GUESSING about the comparative intellectual capacities KBJ and ACB. That's the sort of subject exercise that people like you might waste time on. I care about OBJECTIVE measures, by which we can CLEARLY separate the two. And it is an OBJECTIVE FACT, that by ANY measure, KBJ is the more qualified, accomplished and experience candidate. By far.

And that FACT is simply not arguable....as your pathetic flailing in this thread has helped demonstrate.

In the future, if you want to talk about what I've said, just quote me. Don't try to paraphrase me, because your emotions seem to cloud your reasoning.

 

[ultmd]

who are these constitutional scholars you claim put down ACB?

DEFLECTION Alert!

YOU (not I) claimed that Barrett is a "major league constitutional scholar". Remember that MORONIC claim? That was YOU, not me. And this is what I said, in response:

• ....WTF is a "major league" constitutional scholar...and who makes that call, huh?
• ACB's name is NO ONE's list of preeminent Constitutional scholars.
• Please, give some quotes and links to this b.s. (so I can have a nice laugh).

So again...ANSWER my questions. Post links and quotes from professionals who have stated that Barrett is considered a "major league constititional scholar". This is the SECOND request. If you dodge it again, we'll both understand that it was just another completely F.O.S. statement from you, ok?

her works have been cited by the UVa, Columbia, NYU and Cornell Law reviews. those are major league law schools

...you really don't know much about academia, do you?

Barrett actually has a comparatively brief professional bibliography. She has a couple dozen published articles to her name, but that actually pales in comparison to other tenured law professors. Her official Senate questionnaire was ONLY 65 pages.....about 1/3 the average for every other SCOTUS nominee over the last 30 years. Barrett's TOTAL document submission (including ALL of her published writings and speeches, etc.).....was 1,800 pages.

But, to give you and idea of how TINY Barrett's professional resume was in comparison to other recent USSC Justices'....

• Elena Kagan's resume included over 180,000 documents for her hearings
• John Roberts' professional resume included over 75,000 documents
• Neil Gorsuch's professional resume' included over 170,00 documents
• Brett Kavanaugh's professional resume' included over 1 MILLION documents

See the difference? Do you see now what I'm talking about? Barrett's professional resume, and her personal credentials were BY FAR the most "sparse" of ANYONE (since Clarence Thomas) in the last half century. There is simple no OBJECTIVE, FACT-BASED argument to the contrary.

So again, if you're trying to tell me that "major league constitutional scholar" was just another FEELING or OPINION from you....based upon NO OBJECTIVE facts whatsoever....just say so. But don't expect others to accept your OPINIONS as relevant facts for a discussion. Your FEELINGS and OPINIONS mean nothing, unless you can provide FACTS or DATA to back them up.

 

[TurtleDude]

This is more ignorant b.s from you. You keep spitting out ignorant b.s., and I'll keep slapping you in the face with the FACTS.

• Harvard U. is Harvard U. Rhodes College (ranked #179) is not Harvard. Never has been. Never will be.
• Harvard Law is Harvard Law. Notre Dame Law is not Harvard Law. Never has been. Never will be.

And as stated previously, Harvard changed their grading system over 20 years ago. Magna cum laude is reserved for the top 10% of the class. Below that, the next 35% are granted Cum Laude status. That's ON PAR with almost every other top undergraduate in the country.

As for the issue of grade inflation....the FACT is that Harvard and Notre Dame are both ranked in the top 20 among schools whose students benefit from "grade inflation".

So......would you like to try again? The above is another FAIL for you.

More stupidity.

You can't seem to separate your FEELINGS from the objective truth.

KBJ's resume put ACB's to shame, at EVERY turn...by ANY objective standard you may wish to consider.

Deal with it.

.....That was 22 years ago. Tell me...why didn't you post a more recent article, huh? You won't say it, so I'll say it for you.

Because, perhaps, you know what Harvard did 20 YEARS AGO (i.e. 2 years after that report came out)?

Harvard changed its grading system. As of just a few years ago, the average Harvard GPA was 3.6, compared to the average Notre Dame GPA of 3.5. Both ranked in the top 20 in the country for grade inflation.

Again....FACTS matter. TRUTH matters. You and people like you don't care about that. But people like me do.

Just admit it, @TurtleDude .....you hate the KBJ nomination for reasons that have NOTHING to do with credentials, experience or intelligence. You hate it (and her) for reasons that are entirely cultural, racial and ideological.

Most decent people can see that. I am quite sure of it.

Bullshit. Same song, second verse.

Says whom? Based upon what? According to what objective standard is Barrett "the best student in 30 years" at that 2nd tier law school she attended?

This is the second time you've repeated this MORONIC claim. I asked you to back it up with FACTS the last time, but you couldn't do it.

And you won't do it now, either. Because you can't.

The OPINIONS and FEELINGS of people like you simply do NOT count in fact-based discussion, my friend.



Dumb comment.

I neither stated, nor suggested, any such thing. Here is my "claim" (once again):


I have no interest in GUESSING about the comparative intellectual capacities KBJ and ACB. That's the sort of subject exercise that people like you might waste time on. I care about OBJECTIVE measures, by which we can CLEARLY separate the two. And it is an OBJECTIVE FACT, that by ANY measure, KBJ is the more qualified, accomplished and experience candidate. By far.

And that FACT is simply not arguable....as your pathetic flailing in this thread has helped demonstrate.

In the future, if you want to talk about what I've said, just quote me. Don't try to paraphrase me, because your emotions seem to cloud your reasoning.

I deny your claim KJB is the more experienced and qualified candidate. Other than Kagan, she is less qualified than anyone put on the court in the last 30 years.

t if you pretend that someone who graduated as the best law student in 30 Years in a top 20 school is not the same as a woman who might have been 70th or 90th in one class year at the 2nd-5th best law school in the USA, then you must argue that places like Harvard and Yale should only admit those who went to the very best prep schools or the top 1/10th of one percent public schools and law schools such as Harvard should only admit students from the top 5 or so undergraduate institutions.

 

[ultmd]

I deny your claim KJB is the more experienced and qualified candidate.

Again....your FEELINGS and OPINIONS mean nothing. In the complete absence of ANY objective facts, data or information....your denial is worthless.

The FACTS are what they are.

I've laid some of them out, multiple times, in this thread. And, not once have you been able to refute them. So that tells me that you know it, but your Trumpian ideology does not allow you to acknowledge it.

Other than Kagan, she is less qualified than anyone put on the court in the last 30 years.

....says you....and no one else.

At least we can agree on that much.

if you pretend that someone who graduated as the best law student in 30 Years

An ignorant LIE, repeated over and over....is still just an ignorant LIE.

Show me where she "graduated as the best law student in 30 years", please.

Document that, if you dare.

You won't....because you can't....because it's an IGNORANT LIE.

in a top 20 school

Another LIE.

Notre Dame is NOT a top 20 law school. Not in any previous ranking. Not in any current ranking. Never has been.

Top 50, at best.

And, last I checked, Harvard's Top 5 status (in every ranking since rankings began) > Notre Dame's Top 50 (at best).

is not the same as a woman who might have been 70th or 90th in one class year

....you just can't help yourself, I see. You just make stuff up...and (because of your sense of entitlement) expect others to accept it.

Magna cum laude at Harvard beats ANYTHING coming out of ANY Tier 2 (or 3) law school like Notre Dame.

And I'm STILL waiting for you to post ANY links or quotes to back up that MORONIC "major league constitutional scholar" nonsense you offered up previously.

Stop DEFLECTING, and answer my questions!

 

[TurtleDude]

Again....your FEELINGS and OPINIONS mean nothing. In the complete absence of ANY objective facts, data or information....your denial is worthless.

The FACTS are what they are.

I've laid some of them out, multiple times, in this thread. And, not once have you been able to refute them. So that tells me that you know it, but your Trumpian ideology does not allow you to acknowledge it.



....says you....and no one else.

At least we can agree on that much.



An ignorant LIE, repeated over and over....is still just an ignorant LIE.

Show me where she "graduated as the best law student in 30 years", please.

Document that, if you dare.

You won't....because you can't....because it's an IGNORANT LIE.


Another LIE.

Notre Dame is NOT a top 20 law school. Not in any previous ranking. Not in any current ranking. Never has been.

Top 50, at best.

And, last I checked, Harvard's Top 5 status (in every ranking since rankings began) > Notre Dame's Top 50 (at best).


....you just can't help yourself, I see. You just make stuff up...and (because of your sense of entitlement) expect others to accept it.

Magna cum laude at Harvard beats ANYTHING coming out of ANY Tier 2 (or 3) law school like Notre Dame.

And I'm STILL waiting for you to post ANY links or quotes to back up that MORONIC "major league constitutional scholar" nonsense you offered up previously.

Stop DEFLECTING, and answer my questions!

your objective facts are merely opinions. You pretend that maybe the 75th best graduate of a top law school is superior the the best graduate in thirty years of a top 25 law school. You again are dishonest claiming magna cum laude (her undergraduate degree-which perhaps 75% of her class obtained) is superior to Notre Dame Law. She was only cum laude at Harvard Law-Barrett was NUMBER ONE IN HER CLASS.

and if you want to use that-then harvard law should only accept those of us who went to the Ivies, Amherst,Stanford, Chicago, Swarthmore Williams and Duke

 

[ultmd]

your objective facts are merely opinions.

With every new post, you demonstrate that you don't understand the difference between facts and opinions.

That is typical of most rightwing ideologues.

You pretend that maybe the 75th best graduate

Another "fact" (i.e. FEELING) that you LITERALLY just made up.

Magna cum laude equals top 10% EVERYWHERE. And at Harvard Law....it means you're one of the best of the very best in the country, every year. Add to that the FACT that KBJ was selected (in a blind writing contest, over EVERY other student in her class at HLS) to serve as THE managing editor of the Harvard Law Review......and there is nothing you can to justify your fact-free attacks on her academic pedigree. Absolutely nothing.

the best graduate in thirty years

You LIE with every post.

This is a LIE, my friend. And the FACT that you cannot post even ONE link to anything documenting ANY such designation for Barrett.....tells EVERYONE reading this thread that you realize you how F.O.S. you are, here, my friend.

of a top 25 law school.

....I thought it was a top 20 law school. What happened?

As have said all along....Notre Dame Law School is "at best" a top 50 school....and is CLEARLY a "2nd tier" institution.

The ONLY reason you keep fumbling over yourself here is that your white-grievance brain simply NEEDS to rationalize (somehow, some way) the presence of Barrett as the LEAST qualified member of the Supreme Court.

Face it, Barrett is nothing more than a case of Affirmative Action for white evangelicals. She was the best they could find from an otherwise poorly qualified, anti-intellectual faction of legal minds in American society.

(her undergraduate degree-which perhaps 75% of her class obtained)

"Perhaps", huh? If so, why can't you back it up?

Because that's a lie, of course. Magna cum laude + top 10% EVERYWHERE. That might not mean much to someone like you, but some of us actually have degrees and understand how much work and discipline their require.

But, tell me....would your disregard for a Magna cum laude degree also apply to the Magna cum laude degree from a mediocre institution like RHODES COLLEGE (which Barrett earned during her undergraduate years)? Go ahead...I want you to repeat for me that Barrett's meant only that she graduated in the top 75% of her class, as well.

Go ahead. I dare you.

The fact that Jackson was admitted to (and excelled at) Harvard College and then Harvard Law...and Barrett was only able to gain admission to 2nd and 3rd tier institutions....speaks to their respective academic pedigrees.

It really doesn't matter what your feelings tell you, @NatMorton ...the OBJECTIVE REALITY (by any measure) is that Barrett is the LEAST impressive member of the Court (perhaps excepting the equally unimpressive Clarence Thomas). That FACT is inarguable...as you have helped prove in this thread.

She was only cum laude at Harvard Law-Barrett was NUMBER ONE IN HER CLASS.

Just a DUMB argument.

That's like arguing that a kid who hits .350 in AAA ball is better than an all-star who hits "only" .320 in the Majors.

Barrett excelled in a generally less talented pool of law students. There was not one ND law student who would have turned down a spot at Harvard Law, if he/she had been able to earn acceptance. They were at ND (and other 2nd tier law schools like it) BECAUSE they couldn't get into a Harvard.

and if you want to use that-then harvard law should only accept those of us who went to the Ivies, Amherst,Stanford, Chicago, Swarthmore Williams and Duke

.....

So then, tell us.....why didn't the child of a corporate attorney and a teacher.....who was raised in an affluent, and politically well-connected family....who attended one of the top prep (high) schools in the entire state of Louisiana.....wasn't able to get into Harvard College....or Harvard Law, huh?

Perhaps....just maybe....Amy Coney Barrett simply wasn't good enough to get into Harvard.