Senate confirms Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

From 1789 until 1967, nobody other than White males were good enough.
An African-American man, Thurgood Marshall, was allowed on the SC in 1967. There were some people who vehemently objected to him because of his race.
I admire President Lyndon Johnson for having the courage to nominate Judge Thurgood Marshall.

 

A Dead Man's HEARSAY...
Which Proves NOTHING...
Try again...

 

Hi arborville! Yes, I am so happy to see Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmed. She is well qualified and deserves to be on the Supreme Court.
How have you been?

 

Gosh, so you can't otherwise defend her qualifications character and merit except to squirm out trump?

 

January 6, 2021 was a VERY sad day for our Constitution and our laws and our safety.

 

The two "primary qualifications" stipulated by the White House were what? Not my qualifications. Those came directly from the President; or whoever is running the show behind the curtain, since we know Joe didn't want Kamala but was stuck with her.

 

Her qualifications are top notch. She has legal experience in areas that none of Trump's 3 SC picks have. She has been a defense lawyer; none of Trump's picks have been defense lawyers.
Does her being African-American upset you?

 

So what! I hope to hear you say that should the GOP re-take control of the Senate at the mid-terms. Big whoop...

 

Anita Hill's testimony proved nothing, and yet Dems went gaga over it. They are terrified of conservative blacks. Same tactic used against Kavanaugh.

 

Of course you have to wonder whether these candidates were merely "allowed" to go into the position, or whether they were put there because of their race.

These days, the latter often seems to be the case.

Not very many, at that time.

 

You stated she was chosen for her race and gender so let's work on that basis.

She and many other women and racial minorities have been passed over for positions for which they qualify solely because they were not white and/or male. So, whatever emotions you have about SCJ Brown-Jackson's confirmation is exactly what every other demographic has experienced in every facet of their lives since this country was founded.

The question is...do you not see how invalidating her education, experience, skills and talents because you eclipse them with what you deem more important (her race and gender (we'll overlook the disrespectful comment about that) automatically elevates any other candidate in your judgment?

 

affirmative action hire

is the proper spelling

 

I dislike Thomas for way more than his conservative views.

 

The fact that you're even making an issue of her race validates what we are saying as right.

What might actually be worth celebrating is if they picked an African American woman and it happened just purely through random chance.

Picking a woman because she is an African American, I am not sure that is such a great thing to be celebrating.

This is just playing racial politics. How much do you want to bet if this had been a Hispanic woman you would not be as excited?

Is racial politics just inevitable? Every group has to have their own "representation" and be placated?

 

It doesn't actually. Why should it? She has a habit of inventing legal process and creates interpretations from thin air. She seems entirely unable to define the simplest of words. She's been confirmed. Her tenure, as noted will see her build this legacy of activism I mentioned prior. And when she determines that your actually defined rights, like speech and free association aren't constitutional, what will you do then?

 

They seem even more terrified of conservative latinos... See Tx...

 

Her race and gender were the reasons she was nominated. Not because of her experience. So I'll let Biden know you think he's being racist.

Lol

 

Maybe you would like to explain to us some ways that you believe this candidate's race & culture will have some tangible positive effects on the way she makes decisions?

(Is that the case at all here?)

 

How very unbiased of you.

 

They really think they own these minorities. Any dissenters have to be hunted down and punished like run-away slaves.

 

Passed Over? Give me a link with real facts please. Show me your proof of your claim.

I haven't been disrespectful in any way. Not one single comment. The primary qualifications were gender and race. Not my doing.

The sooner we take race and gender out of the conversation, the sooner the people can stop being race and gender biased.

Maybe each President should establish they are looking for the best candidate to nominate and keep their "other" key qualifications private.

And the real question is, was she the best candidate for the nomination? What happened to Merrick Garland? He was once an important nominee long before Jackson. Does he no longer qualify? Wouldn't his credentials be greater than Jackson's?

Just pointing out facts here. I will say it one more time.

The sooner we take race and gender out of the conversation, the sooner the people can stop being race and gender biased.

 

Are you now claiming that you aren't biased toward him? What's your point?

 

You have proof right in front of your eyes. I can't make you *see* it.

This whole post, but specifically the underlined sentence, is very disrespectful. Do you define that word in non-standard way?

That's not the issue but I doubt you're going to "hear" that so I'll leave it at that.

 

Yes, that's what I'm claiming.

 

You are living in the past, again.

Why do you hold people today accountable for the actions of people they may or may not have been related to, much less have anything to say about their actions? That would be like blaming all people involved in massacres that happened 100s of years ago. It sounds like you feel some sort of justice has been served on people who had nothing to do with the objectionable actions.

That's a very heavy chip to carry through your life. Why don't you put it down?