Senate confirms Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

They were the ones directly affected by the law and given the right to vote which they had not had until that time

 

I think we may have gotten sidetracked and lost in the details of one example I provided.... My point is simply this, surely there will come cases across her desk where it will be important to simply legally define what a woman is.

Writing and interpreting laws requires clear-cut definitions for clarity.

 

Good one.

 

actually. That is interesting. I heard about that. I never heard about the follow ups. I'm guessing people took Trumps butt to court, making him cave in.

 

Imagine being told, sorry, but they decided to go with another white male, instead.

Your comment is really clueless, but I'll take a shot, in case you are not completely hopeless. A Supreme Court Justice is not just a player on a team, for which they only matter, while they're in the game. Because of the importance of precedent, in our law, every Justice leaves a lasting legacy, on the way our nation interprets our national compact, the Constitution. Therefore, it is only going to improve that interpretation, in how it will apply to all people in our society, if we get as broad a cross section of competent legal perspectives as possible, from people of diverse backgrounds. If we only had financially privileged, white, male, Harvard graduates for Supreme Court Justices, how could it not be true that the rights and concerns of white, affluent, males would not have been disproportionately considered, in the cumulative interpretation of our Constitution? And how could it not also be so, that the interests of people from different backgrounds, with a different type of American experience-- minority groups, women, people of lower income-- would be ignored, in the shaping of our nation's legal philosophies, if for no other reason, out of ignorance of what the true impact of the laws are, in the lives of those citizens?

Well, out of 115 Supreme Court Justices, 108 have been white men. Do you really think there is any lack of the white male perspective, in the interpretation of our laws? Compare that to the only 2 black males, who have had a voice in the SCOTUS, and, before today, the only 4 women, none of whom was black. So, the question I have for you, is why should not Ketanji Jackson's ability to bring a perspective that has been totally neglected, throughout the Court's history, be considered as something that increases the value of her input, on the Court, and be seen as an added asset, she would bring?


I do not even need to know you, to be relatively sure that if you are a white male, but our country's high Court had never had a white male on it, you would be a strong advocate for the advantages of getting a white male's viewpoint, on Constitutional law. Do you see how this should apply equally to a black woman's viewpoint?

 

Lol…like trump declaring himself the winner of the 2020 election, eh?

 

I tagged you on my response.

 

He sent out a secret memo but it only went to conservatives.... He declared that he will live inside of liberal's heads forevermore!

Viva la Trump!!!

 

That's not the same as your first statement though.

 

It only gave them the vote right?
Whereas before they did not have the vote.

So yes I would say it directly affected women only. And by that I mean the passage of the law not other tangential ramifications

 

I'm not a mental health specialist but my impression of it is they wanted something to point at and say "See! She's <whatever they want to complain about>!!!" and it's very easy to get people worked up about race and gender so it was an easy sell. Trump spent his whole term in office having midnight meltdowns on Twitter. They know their target audience!

I got caught up in a project but started to research to see if I can find transcripts or recordings of previous nominees. I'm curious if anything this far off someone's wheelhouse has ever been asked before. I'm not saying it hasn't but it seems like a lot of "extra" is going into beating this to death. <smdh>

 

Yes, that is accurate with that qualifier.

Why do you think that's relevant to this question that concerns you about SCJ Brown-Jackson?

 

Because it's just one example of a case where it would be important to have a legal definition of a woman.

 

I visited The Supreme Court and saw Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench years ago.

 

I understood that part of your argument when you posted it earlier. I'm asking you to think about that within the context of her role and, with that, why this specific *question* not being answered to your satisfaction is a barrier to possibly recognizing strengths that she has and will bring to the SCOTUS.

+++++++++++++

For instance, I don't know what you do or did for a living but let's say that someone came to you and said "FatBack, I need your help man. You know I got laid off and we don't have insurance and the old lady hasn't been doing too well. I don't know what it is, but can you come around later and give her a thorough medical exam and let us know what's wrong? You know, just an idea so I can try to get her some pills or something? If not, maybe we can read a book and figure out how to do surgery. Will you help me out, man?"

How would you respond to your neighbor's request?

 

I would tell them unless there is something on her that is made out of steel and broken that I can possibly weld and fix that they should probably go to a real doctor!

I know what you're getting at here but it doesn't take a degree in biology to simply say a woman is an adult female of the human species

 

They do. They also know the tables have been turned. Them pro slaver flag waving and pro slavery adoring statue worshippers are GOP supporters.

 

Good for you. I'm glad to know that.

OK. So, I'm going to just throw this out there. You can catch it if you want or not.

Leaders aren't chosen because they are walking dictionaries and encyclopedias. They are chosen because they know how TO FIND the answer. There is no person on this planet outside our self-proclaimed "stable genius" that knows everything. That's why we have specialists and those people have tons of assistants, research materials, law libraries and Constitution professors all over the country. Nobody is showing up at the SCOTUS with these kinds of questions.

Further, keep in mind, that the SCOTUS is the last stop. A case has to be heard in several lower courts before it ever reaches the SCOTUS. They also get to decide if they will even hear a case. This means they aren't getting blindsided by any stretch of the imagination. Nothing is being projectiled from outer space onto our SC Justices, man.

The reality is it probably wouldn't have mattered what she said. The people that want to b*tch and moan about her nomination WILL find a reason - any reason.

I was honestly stunned when people woke up on January 7, 2021 still defending Trump. Nobody wants to talk about that or those dead officers or the hundreds injured but *one* question, a "gotcha" moment, has people up in arms? All I'm saying is it feels like our priorities might be a bit skewed here.

 

Justice has been served.

 

Deflect much? Did Comey affect Hillary's election or not?

And yes, there is one reason that she lost. Her campaigning sucked.

 

Bro. Just be honest. She didn’t want to answer the question because she supports leftist transgender ideology and didn’t want to affirm that in the SCOTUS hearing because it would hurt her chances at confirmation given the transgender sports issue that’s so polarizing in this country right now.

There is literally ZERO other reason to provide the answer she did. None. Whatsoever.

 

Based on the way you said it he probably was.

 

Apparently the color of nominees skin. I would have included gender in that as well, but "she" cannot define a woman. That alone disqualifies her!

Just like Colin Powell voted for Obama because of the color of his skin!

Ignorance at its highest level. And if you really look at it, that is total racism!

If I say I am voting for Joe Biden over Condoleezza Rice because of the color of his skin and because he is a man, what will you call me? Racism and bigotry works in all directions whether people want to accept that or not.

She was chosen for her skin color and gender. Same as our current wholly inept Vice President. God help us that we have come to this insanity.

 

Can you not see the connection in saying that someone has *only* been chosen for those reasons is automatically elevating anyone that doesn't fit into either or both of those boxes?

 

And, So What?
Trump clearly selected Barrett based on her GENDER...
Trump vows to appoint a woman to Supreme Court as vacancy re-energizes his political prospects
So?
Big Whoop...
Next...