Op-Ed: The sickening Republican smear campaign against Ketanji Brown Jackson

[CoffeeTiger 5,062]

8 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Not yet as far as I know. But the whole man/women/non binary topic has come up recently especially in sports. I definitely see where something at some point is going to end up in court. That’s why it was asked. 
 

 

 

Any topic about anything could conceivably end up at some point in the Supreme Court. 

 

This is just culture war pandering. It's a trap question that has no bearing on Judge Jacksons qualifications for the job.

 

It accomplished what Republicans wanted though, as the "omg! she couldn't answer "what is a woman"?" is the most talked about story about the hearing in right wing media now. 

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

11 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Any topic about anything could conceivably end up at some point in the Supreme Court. 

 

This is just culture war pandering. It's a trap question that has no bearing on Judge Jacksons qualifications for the job.

 

It accomplished what Republicans wanted though, as the "omg! she couldn't answer "what is a woman"?" is the most talked about story about the hearing in right wing media now. 

 

Well, they were pretty simple questions. 

[TexasTiger 12,781]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

Not yet as far as I know. But the whole man/women/non binary topic has come up recently especially in sports. I definitely see where something at some point is going to end up in court. That’s why it was asked. 
 

 

That’s also why she didn’t answer. The question is going to be key to probably multiple court cases. A good jurist listens to arguments first on legal matters not yet ruled upon. For many such matters, however, the Congress could could provide clear statutory definitions on terms like “man” and “woman” that the Court would be bound by. But that would require them to do their jobs instead of beating her up for doing hers with the muddle they’ve provided.

[I_M4_AU 7,751]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Any topic about anything could conceivably end up at some point in the Supreme Court. 

 

This is just culture war pandering. It's a trap question that has no bearing on Judge Jacksons qualifications for the job.

 

It accomplished what Republicans wanted though, as the "omg! she couldn't answer "what is a woman"?" is the most talked about story about the hearing in right wing media now. 

 

The question and eventual answer given meet the purpose of the question.  She is *qualified* but what the answers she gave, that was usually *I don’t know* paints, her as a leftist radical judge.  There will be little to no consideration as a centrist judge on any controversial question brought to the SCOTUS.  That is exactly who she has replaced.

[TexasTiger 12,781]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The question and eventual answer given meet the purpose of the question.  She is *qualified* but what the answers she gave, that was usually *I don’t know* paints, her as a leftist radical judge.  There will be little to no consideration as a centrist judge on any controversial question brought to the SCOTUS.  That is exactly who she has replaced.

That’s a totally unsupported extrapolation.

[I_M4_AU 7,751]

29 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s also why she didn’t answer. The question is going to be key to probably multiple court cases. A good jurist listens to arguments first on legal matters not yet ruled upon. For many such matters, however, the Congress could could provide clear statutory definitions on terms like “man” and “woman” that the Court would be bound by. But that would require them to do their jobs instead of beating her up for doing hers with the muddle they’ve provided.

Recently the SCOTUS included LGBTQA+2@#&*% people in the 1964 Civil Rights Bill by a 6-3 margin. She couldn’t reference that with her answer?  I think she believes things she is unwilling to reveal.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The question and eventual answer given meet the purpose of the question.  She is *qualified* but what the answers she gave, that was usually *I don’t know* paints, her as a leftist radical judge.  There will be little to no consideration as a centrist judge on any controversial question brought to the SCOTUS.  That is exactly who she has replaced.

I would have preferred she just answer honestly. 
 

She couldn’t even answer the question regarding her opinion of RBG’s ruling and  if she agreed that in order for humans to remain in existence that both sexes needed to be present. 

[I_M4_AU 7,751]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

That’s a totally unsupported extrapolation.

Which part?  That she is qualified or that she is a leftist replacing a leftist judge on the bench?

[CoffeeTiger 5,062]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Which part?  That she is qualified or that she is a leftist replacing a leftist judge on the bench?

you're judging her as a "radical leftist" not because of her history or experience, but because she wont answer the Republicans 'gottcha' questions. 

That's a bit of a reach. 

[I_M4_AU 7,751]

1 minute ago, wdefromtx said:

I would have preferred she just answer honestly. 
 

She couldn’t even answer the question regarding her opinion of RBG’s ruling and  if she agreed that in order for humans to remain in existence that both sexes needed to be present. 

She was very evasive on several questions, not just the gender issue.

[TexasTiger 12,781]

9 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Recently the SCOTUS included LGBTQA+2@#&*% people in the 1964 Civil Rights Bill by a 6-3 margin. She couldn’t reference that with her answer?  I think she believes things she is unwilling to reveal.

It’s application in that case is fact and law specific. How it applies in Title IX and other cases may be totally different. Don’t assume you know how Gorsuch will rule in every LGBTQ case.

[TexasTiger 12,781]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

She was very evasive on several questions, not just the gender issue.

Such as?

[TexasTiger 12,781]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Which part?  That she is qualified or that she is a leftist replacing a leftist judge on the bench?

 

7 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

you're judging her as a "radical leftist" not because of her history or experience, but because she wont answer the Republicans 'gottcha' questions. 

That's a bit of a reach. 

 

[homersapien 11,337]

On 3/22/2022 at 10:33 AM, bigbird said:

Starting with Thomas in '91, every single nomination presented by an R president (minus Roberts) has pretty much been a party line vote.  Every nomination by a D president have been overwhelmingly passed with relative ease.

 

Thomas (Bush1)= 52-48 

 

Ginsberg (Clinton) = 87-9

Breyer (Clinton)= 86-3

 

Roberts (HW) = 78-22

Alito (HW) = 58-42 

 

Kagan (O) = 63-37

Sotomayor (O) = 68-31 

 

Barrett (Trump) =  52-48

Kavanaugh (Trump) =  50-48

Gorsuch (Trump) = 54-45 

 

Why is that?

 

 

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/nominations/SupremeCourtNominations1789present.htm

Republicans have a strong tendency to pick biased (right wing) candidates.

It's one of several ways a minority party exerts political power in our system. 

[I_M4_AU 7,751]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Such as?

Really?  When does life begin, when can a baby in the womb feel pain, define *a woman*, any question from Cruz, Kennedy, Hawley and Cotton.

[I_M4_AU 7,751]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

It’s application in that case is fact and law specific. How it applies in Title IX and other cases may be totally different. Don’t assume you know how Gorsuch will rule in every LGBTQ case.

Thank God. I wouldn’t assume how Gorsuch would rule, but I’m certain how Jackson will rule.

[homersapien 11,337]

On 3/23/2022 at 8:35 AM, bigbird said:

If there wasn't a vote, how can you discuss votes the nomination received.  He doesn't belong, I didn't add Miers either since he withdrew.

 

You don't agree with my premise and think it's flawed. Okay. I don't.  Neither will convince the other and I don't have the time I did yesterday. 

I truly hope you have a really good day.  

So, your premise is that Democrats are more partisan than Republicans based on the voting statistics but an example of Republicans not even allowing for a vote of a Democratic nominee isn't relevant?

You betcha. 

Edited March 24, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,337]

On 3/22/2022 at 11:21 AM, bigbird said:

What do you call it when one group demands certain behaviors from another group while not subscribing to the same behaviors?

A false premise. 

[I_M4_AU 7,751]

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

you're judging her as a "radical leftist" not because of her history or experience, but because she wont answer the Republicans 'gottcha' questions. 

That's a bit of a reach. 

No, but it shows the public that she is one.  I’m judging her on her admiration of The 1619 Projects author, saying in speeches she looked up to one of the founders of CRT, her being on the board of a private school that pushed CRT to children as early as Kindergarten, you know stuff like that.

[homersapien 11,337]

17 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Because that topic is front and center at the moment........

No it's not. 

The topic front and center is how society should respond to people who are afflicted from the condition known as "cisgender".

The definition of "what is a woman" is one of for either popular opinion or scientific opinion, depending largely on one's education of the subject.

[SaltyTiger 7,757]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

For many such matters, however, the Congress could could provide clear statutory definitions on terms like “man” and “woman” that the Court would be bound by. But that would require them to do their jobs instead of beating her up for doing hers with the muddle they’ve provided.

You make much sense at times. I have no problem with the ladies answer to the stupid question. Am I correct in saying the 19th admending doesn’t say “women” or “woman”.

[homersapien 11,337]

4 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Any topic about anything could conceivably end up at some point in the Supreme Court. 

 

This is just culture war pandering. It's a trap question that has no bearing on Judge Jacksons qualifications for the job.

 

It accomplished what Republicans wanted though, as the "omg! she couldn't answer "what is a woman"?" is the most talked about story about the hearing in right wing media now. 

 

That along with "critical race theory" and child pornography.  

Typical Republican cultural fear mongering.  It's all they got.

Edited March 24, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,337]

4 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

Well, they were pretty simple questions. 

Yep, all too simple and calculated, not to mention totally disingenuous. 

[homersapien 11,337]

2 hours ago, wdefromtx said:

I would have preferred she just answer honestly. 
 

She couldn’t even answer the question regarding her opinion of RBG’s ruling and  if she agreed that in order for humans to remain in existence that both sexes needed to be present. 

I'm curious, how would you have answered?

[homersapien 11,337]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

She was very evasive on several questions, not just the gender issue.

Examples?