Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson Confirmation Hearing *DISCUSSION AND LIVE COMMENTARY*

[Fuzzy Bear]

She called herself a woman in her speech yesterday, so apparently she researched the word and now knows what it means.  FF. #Epiphany 

That's harsh. You and I both consider ourselves to be "white" without having an objective definition of who is and isn't white.

She is neither honest nor decent.

She should be ridiculed for her comment about not being able to define what a woman is until she apologizes for being evasive during a confirmation hearing.  Perhaps unrelenting ridicule and disrespect will enable KBJ to develop the minimal humility necessary to answer a question that has become surprisingly relevant.

It's not the end of the world.  But she's a weasel.  And I have little respect for weasels until they stop weaseling.

[GoTfan]

She called herself a woman in her speech yesterday, so apparently she researched the word and now knows what it means.  FF. #Epiphany 

That's harsh. You and I both consider ourselves to be "white" without having an objective definition of who is and isn't white.

She is neither honest nor decent.

She should be ridiculed for her comment about not being able to define what a woman is until she apologizes for being evasive during a confirmation hearing.  Perhaps unrelenting ridicule and disrespect will enable KBJ to develop the minimal humility necessary to answer a question that has become surprisingly relevant.

It's not the end of the world.  But she's a weasel.  And I have little respect for weasels until they stop weaseling.

This choice of words can be interpreted in a number of ways, and none of them reflect well on you.

[Fuzzy Bear]

She called herself a woman in her speech yesterday, so apparently she researched the word and now knows what it means.  FF. #Epiphany 

That's harsh. You and I both consider ourselves to be "white" without having an objective definition of who is and isn't white.

She is neither honest nor decent.

She should be ridiculed for her comment about not being able to define what a woman is until she apologizes for being evasive during a confirmation hearing.  Perhaps unrelenting ridicule and disrespect will enable KBJ to develop the minimal humility necessary to answer a question that has become surprisingly relevant.

It's not the end of the world.  But she's a weasel.  And I have little respect for weasels until they stop weaseling.

This choice of words can be interpreted in a number of ways, and none of them reflect well on you.

It's not too much to ask of a Supreme Court nominee for a lifetime appointment to answer such a question as this, especially given the kinds of issues that will likely to find their way to the SCOTUS.

Judge Jackson (soon to be Justice Jackson) knows full well what a "woman" is, both in biology and in law.  At a minimum, she had a philosophy on this that she will now have the power to codify into law in the form of authoring (and concurring in) majority opinions of the SCOTUS.  Her answer (or, more accurately, her evasiiveness) suggests that "What does the Law say?" is not what future Justice Jackson will actually be determining.  Such evasion indicates that on any number of issues before the Court she has a set outcome she would like to see, and her approach is one of "What must I do, legal reasoning-wise, to get to the result I want?". 

The gibberish about "our democracy" is, for the most part, insincere.  The sort of "legislating from the Bench" that Judge Jackson will likely subject America to for decades is the opposite of democracy, and while it's not just the Left on the SCOTUS that have done this, Jackson promises much more of this.  That one may consider a decision of the SCOTUS to be a public good when it strikes down a piece of legislation does not make it "democratic".  The Court, indeed, is not a "democratic" institution, and when Federal Courts legislate by Judicial Fiat, that is not democracy.  Supporters of Judge Jackson want her simply because what they want to accomplish by Judicial Fiat does not have popular support, and "democracy", whatever is is, is not frustrating the popular will.

She's not the living end, but she will be a Judicial Legislator, and that will not be good for the Rule of Law.

[emailking]

Oh shuttup.

[GoTfan]

She called herself a woman in her speech yesterday, so apparently she researched the word and now knows what it means.  FF. #Epiphany 

That's harsh. You and I both consider ourselves to be "white" without having an objective definition of who is and isn't white.

She is neither honest nor decent.

She should be ridiculed for her comment about not being able to define what a woman is until she apologizes for being evasive during a confirmation hearing.  Perhaps unrelenting ridicule and disrespect will enable KBJ to develop the minimal humility necessary to answer a question that has become surprisingly relevant.

It's not the end of the world.  But she's a weasel.  And I have little respect for weasels until they stop weaseling.

This choice of words can be interpreted in a number of ways, and none of them reflect well on you.

It's not too much to ask of a Supreme Court nominee for a lifetime appointment to answer such a question as this, especially given the kinds of issues that will likely to find their way to the SCOTUS.

Judge Jackson (soon to be Justice Jackson) knows full well what a "woman" is, both in biology and in law.  At a minimum, she had a philosophy on this that she will now have the power to codify into law in the form of authoring (and concurring in) majority opinions of the SCOTUS.  Her answer (or, more accurately, her evasiiveness) suggests that "What does the Law say?" is not what future Justice Jackson will actually be determining.  Such evasion indicates that on any number of issues before the Court she has a set outcome she would like to see, and her approach is one of "What must I do, legal reasoning-wise, to get to the result I want?". 

The gibberish about "our democracy" is, for the most part, insincere.  The sort of "legislating from the Bench" that Judge Jackson will likely subject America to for decades is the opposite of democracy, and while it's not just the Left on the SCOTUS that have done this, Jackson promises much more of this.  That one may consider a decision of the SCOTUS to be a public good when it strikes down a piece of legislation does not make it "democratic".  The Court, indeed, is not a "democratic" institution, and when Federal Courts legislate by Judicial Fiat, that is not democracy.  Supporters of Judge Jackson want her simply because what they want to accomplish by Judicial Fiat does not have popular support, and "democracy", whatever is is, is not frustrating the popular will.

She's not the living end, but she will be a Judicial Legislator, and that will not be good for the Rule of Law.

Almost all the conservative Justices, save Robert's, are also Judicial Legislators

[Fuzzy Bear]

She called herself a woman in her speech yesterday, so apparently she researched the word and now knows what it means.  FF. #Epiphany 

That's harsh. You and I both consider ourselves to be "white" without having an objective definition of who is and isn't white.

She is neither honest nor decent.

She should be ridiculed for her comment about not being able to define what a woman is until she apologizes for being evasive during a confirmation hearing.  Perhaps unrelenting ridicule and disrespect will enable KBJ to develop the minimal humility necessary to answer a question that has become surprisingly relevant.

It's not the end of the world.  But she's a weasel.  And I have little respect for weasels until they stop weaseling.

This choice of words can be interpreted in a number of ways, and none of them reflect well on you.

It's not too much to ask of a Supreme Court nominee for a lifetime appointment to answer such a question as this, especially given the kinds of issues that will likely to find their way to the SCOTUS.

Judge Jackson (soon to be Justice Jackson) knows full well what a "woman" is, both in biology and in law.  At a minimum, she had a philosophy on this that she will now have the power to codify into law in the form of authoring (and concurring in) majority opinions of the SCOTUS.  Her answer (or, more accurately, her evasiiveness) suggests that "What does the Law say?" is not what future Justice Jackson will actually be determining.  Such evasion indicates that on any number of issues before the Court she has a set outcome she would like to see, and her approach is one of "What must I do, legal reasoning-wise, to get to the result I want?". 

The gibberish about "our democracy" is, for the most part, insincere.  The sort of "legislating from the Bench" that Judge Jackson will likely subject America to for decades is the opposite of democracy, and while it's not just the Left on the SCOTUS that have done this, Jackson promises much more of this.  That one may consider a decision of the SCOTUS to be a public good when it strikes down a piece of legislation does not make it "democratic".  The Court, indeed, is not a "democratic" institution, and when Federal Courts legislate by Judicial Fiat, that is not democracy.  Supporters of Judge Jackson want her simply because what they want to accomplish by Judicial Fiat does not have popular support, and "democracy", whatever is is, is not frustrating the popular will.

She's not the living end, but she will be a Judicial Legislator, and that will not be good for the Rule of Law.

Almost all the conservative Justices, save Robert's, are also Judicial Legislators

Some are.  I'm not a fan of Citizens United, either.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

She called herself a woman in her speech yesterday, so apparently she researched the word and now knows what it means.  FF. #Epiphany 

That's harsh. You and I both consider ourselves to be "white" without having an objective definition of who is and isn't white.

It was just an attempt at a little levity, Harry, albeit obviously a poor one. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We already know R politics is hypocritical back during the Boomer Age, Marshall and Clarence Thomas used Affirmative Action by the Voting Rights got thru College and Law School and got straight A's, others aren't that smart and could only maintain a  C plus average 2.86 all that's needed to get into Law School

We know Clarence Thomas thinks everyone has to be an A student but KBJ and Thurgood Marshall don't and the Rs thinks everyone has to get straight A's to get into Law School I got rejected from many law school and got in on References, no one has to get into school based on straight A's alone

Now Clarence Thomas is against Affirmative Action and the Voting Rights after he got thru Law school with Straight A's that's hypocritical

That's why we need a D Congress next yr to get pass the Voting Rights 52/48 and 218H