Meet the next Supreme court justice Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson

[Coyote]

I'm sorry you don't recognize that blacks don't have graduation requirements. Pretty much across the board. Standards are racist.

Why don’t you just admit you have nothing?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Why don’t you just admit you have nothing?

No. We live in a pro black country.

 

[bendog]

Simian was in another race thread, my mistake. On the other, there are many posts stating or implying she can’t possibly be highly qualified because of the assumption with how she entered Harvard, which isn’t even verified, an sssumption 100% made based on her race, not her record. THAT is racist imo.

Reagan, Trump and Biden all announced essentially the same thing.



So are you saying out of a pool of millions of black professional women out there, none could possibly be qualified?

How is that any different than choosing based other criteria that have no direct bearing on strict merit?

I don't think it's about her being black or being female that gives her some "insight" to issues. Thomas is black, and ABC is a female, but obviously they view issues much differently than did either RBG or Thurgood Marshall. Obviously, Biden had a choice between 3 very qualified black women for Breyer's seat.

The decision for a black woman is because Biden promised it for the black vote. He's hardly the first to "pander." Both Reagan and BushI did so shamelessly. And I didn't have an issue. I'm not so sure LBJ was pandering with Thurgood Marshall. He was the lead attny for Brown v. Bd of Educ, and LBJ was driving a stake in segregation.

But ideologically, Brown is presumably a counterpoint to ABC who thinks a fetus is a person (under the 14th a fetus is not) and Keggers just said a fetus has a "right," as opposed to society have a legit purpose in protecting potential life. And presumably she sees Harvard having an interest in giving some preference to non-whites, which Thomas considers unconstitutional, even though he was given educ slots and jobs because of his race and social status.

The fact that she's a black female is really irrelevant to credentials, and the naysayers simply are hypocrites in failing to notice other panderings.

 

[WEATHER53]

He will more likely be impeached than she confirmed
The apples to banana Regan comparison doesn’t work. He stated he would consider one race and one sex only and is now trying to follow thru. That’s illegal and won’t move forward unhindered.

 

[Lisa558]

The fact that SOME need extra help in beginning is irrelevant if they they graduate at the end. Just goes to show they have the tenacity and work ethic to succeed despite their beginnings.

On top of that, not one of you has shown she was accepted into Harvard with substandard qualifications. You are making that claim solely because of her race. The fact that you don’t hold the legacy students (some of whom are on the Supreme Court, all of whom are white) to the same standard is notable if not racist.



Oh? Do you have data to show that? Sounds like a “gentleman’s C” is a special arrangement to keep from failing (kind of like they do with their top athletes).

Now listen….and listen good. High school graduates ranking #29 in their class do not get into Harvard unless they are black, or a sports star, or a legacy. It so happens that the legacies, on average and while some would not have qualified otherwise, do better than blacks admitted under AA exceptions.

And you are saying “so what if these less-qualified blacks need extra help getting through Harvard,” while gleefully ignoring that better-qualified whites who would not have needed the extra help were relegated to a lesser university. It is completely racist to make admissions decisions, or alter admissions requirements, with the end goal of admitting more blacks and rejecting more whites, or, increasingly, more Asians.

It‘s time for leftists to drop their racism.

 

[Care4all]

He will more likely be impeached than she confirmed
The apples to banana Regan comparison doesn’t work. He stated he would consider one race and one sex only and is now trying to follow thru. That’s illegal and won’t move forward unhindered.

Geez. No where in the constitution is what Biden announced is illegal.

Please stop your bull shitting.

The president has the right to nominate ANYONE that he wants according to the constitution, and the Senate has the duty to advise and consent.

There is nothing about limiting the president, in their pick or picks....or announcements.

Trump announced his pick was going to be a woman....we all knew this before he announced Barrett.

 

[Coyote]

Now listen….and listen good. High school graduates ranking #29 in their class do not get into Harvard unless they are black, or a sports star, or a legacy. It so happens that the legacies, on average and while some would not have qualified otherwise, do better than blacks admitted under AA exceptions.

Are you saying she ranked 29th?

Do you have any evidence legacies do better?

And you are saying “so what if these less-qualified blacks need extra help getting through Harvard,” while gleefully ignoring that better-qualified whites who would not have needed the extra help were relegated to a lesser university. It is completely racist to make admissions decisions, or alter admissions requirements, with the end goal of admitting more blacks and rejecting more whites, or, increasingly, more Asians.

I am saying what goes in is less important than what comes out. Many groups have gotten a leg up: racial minorities, women, first generation college students, veterans. Why is it you ONLY complain about blacks?

I’m not bothered by it. Colleges have a right to use multiple metrics in choosing admissions as long as the academic rigor for graduating is maintained. Many colleges will give extra weight to first generation students (and many African Americans fall under this as well)..these students often lack the support structure for academic excellence but when given a chance and supported, end up doing just as well as other students. They are also then better equipped to help their own kids succeed academically and break a cycle of low wage jobs. In your world, they’d never have a chance since they often come from sub par schools, can’t afford tutoring for test scores etc.

What you are advocating in the guise of ”fairness” is an increasingly entrenched system supporting those who have from those who have not.

And worse…you seem to consistently single out black people for this.

It‘s time for leftists to drop their racism.

In this exchange, it does not seem to be coming from the left.

 

[Lisa558]

Are you saying she ranked 29th?

Do you have any evidence legacies do better?




I am saying what goes in is less important than what comes out. Many groups have gotten a leg up: racial minorities, women, first generation college students, veterans. Why is it you ONLY complain about blacks?

I’m not bothered by it. Colleges have a right to use multiple metrics in choosing admissions as long as the academic rigor for graduating is maintained. Many colleges will give extra weight to first generation students (and many African Americans fall under this as well)..these students often lack the support structure for academic excellence but when given a chance and supported, end up doing just as well as other students. They are also then better equipped to help their own kids succeed academically and break a cycle of low wage jobs. In your world, they’d never have a chance since they often come from sub par schools, can’t afford tutoring for test scores etc.

What you are advocating in the guise of ”fairness” is an increasingly entrenched system supporting those who have from those who have not.

And worse…you seem to consistently single out black people for this.






In this exchange, it does not seem to be coming from the left.

I am focused on the unfair advantage given to lower-performing blacks over higher-performing whites because I, unlike you, do not support racist policies.

Thank G-d there was no affirmative action in the 1940s and admission was granted based on merit, or else my bright and hard-working and motivated father, may he RIP, may have lost his spot to a black kid with significantly worse grades and score, and my dad would not have escaped his poor, tenement badkground.

So I ask you, why was my father, who was was in high school during WWII lost his grandmother, aunt, uncle, and four cousins to Hitler, still under that horrific shadow studied as hard as he could and got excellent grades so he could gain admission and tuition-paid, lose out on an opportunity he DESERVED because someone with much worse grades had dark skin?

So, while YOU may not be “bothered” by the racist favoritism of affirmative action, I am sure glad it wasn‘t around in the late 40s, and my dad was able to enjoy the life he worked hard for, and given his intelligence and academic accomplishment, DESERVED. RIP.

 

[NoNukes]

No. We live in a pro black country.

If that were true, what would be wrong with it?

 

[Lisa558]

If that were true, what would be wrong with it?

We shouldn’t be pro any specific race, black or white. Candidates for job openings should be considered regardless of their race, and it is no more acceptable to announce that whites will not be considered than it is to say that blacks will not be considered.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If that were true, what would be wrong with it?

Well it's flatly racist for one thing.

 

[basquebromance]

Mitch: Ketanji BJ wouldn't answer if she supports liberals' court-packing scheme

 

[IamZ]

'This Is Disturbing': GOP Senator Uncovers 'Alarming Pattern' With SCOTUS Nominee Jackson Involving Children in Cases She's Ruled On: He Alleges In His Opinion

This should concern both Democrats AND Republicans.

conservativebrief.com

Her stance on pedophiliar is disqualifying.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's odd...you and all your ilk say that about Candice Owens relentlessly? Isn't she a 'Black Woman" ?????

Seems you are quite racist against any person of color who you disagree with. Nice.

Wear your label proudly fuitcake, I'll spell it for you....H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e.

What a retarded post.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Mitch: Ketanji BJ wouldn't answer if she supports liberals' court-packing scheme

Good. F them

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

An America hater, great, just what we need on the Supreme Court.
But hey, she's a black female, and that's all the fuck that matters now.

That's what someone who thinks there isn't a qualified black woman would say. I.E., SOP in this country for 200+ years.

The irony is that Biden felt compelled to put a black woman on the court because of PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

Go find a mirror, give yourself the credit you deserve.

 

[bodecea]

'This Is Disturbing': GOP Senator Uncovers 'Alarming Pattern' With SCOTUS Nominee Jackson Involving Children in Cases She's Ruled On: He Alleges In His Opinion

This should concern both Democrats AND Republicans.

conservativebrief.com

Her stance on pedophiliar is disqualifying.

Ah, the Russian go-to line.

 

[IamZ]

Ah, the Russian go-to line.

Commie troll

 

[FA_Q2]

'This Is Disturbing': GOP Senator Uncovers 'Alarming Pattern' With SCOTUS Nominee Jackson Involving Children in Cases She's Ruled On: He Alleges In His Opinion

This should concern both Democrats AND Republicans.

conservativebrief.com

Her stance on pedophiliar is disqualifying.

Or it would be if there were more than just tweets on it.

Try linking some actual cases and show how they were incorrectly decided.

 

[Lisa558]

Or it would be if there were more than just tweets on it.

Try linking some actual cases and show how they were incorrectly decided.

The affirmative action pick has a troublesome pattern of having her leftist-driven rulings overturned for judicial overreach - and by the already liberal DC Court. One was where she wanted to give Homeland Security more discretion on allowing non-citizens (perhaps a euphemism for illegals?) to avoid deportation, and a couple of others were on giving more power to the federal unions.

Biden Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson could face scrutiny for overturned decisions

President Biden's first Supreme Court nominee could face scrutiny from the Senate for a judicial track record that includes multiple decisions overturned by higher courts.

www.foxnews.com