Resident Biden promised to nominate a Black Woman to the next Supreme Court vacancy.  Honoring his promise, he nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson.

When asked in the Senate hearing to define "woman", she said, "I can't."

If that's true, then how the hell did she even get the nomination?  Biden said he was nominating a WOMAN.  I guess she'll identify as one if she wants the job.

On a related tangent, by promising to nominate someone based on gender and skin color/race, he preemptively cast doubt on her qualifications to be on the court.  The same problem exists with any affirmative action program.  If someone is hired based on a demographics, it's assumed they may not have been qualified enough to win the job on their qualifications and experience.  The cloud of doubt exists, even if the person is the best qualified of all candidates.

Such a horrible thing to do to the more-qualified people who didn't fit the demographics, to the fully qualified candidates who get hired/nominated and happen to fit the desired demographics, and to the people following  these appointments and expect the process to be fair and legal.  It's illegal to discriminate based on race and gender.  Racial and gender preference IS discrimination against those who don't fit those categories.

The media is saying resisting the announcement of this nominee, which was based on her race and gender, somehow is "racist."

Unbelievable!  Pointing out a race-based nomination is racist!   

Her nomination should be rejected on the grounds that her nomination was racial and gender based.

That's a common sense no-no in my book.  It shows that there was no real effort to purvey the pool of qualified candidates, male and female, white, black, brown, yellow, green, orange or any other color that is out there.

joe biden should have just shut his dumb mouth and nominated her and leave it at that.

But no, the dumb a$$ had to show how woke he pretends to be.  He also shows that his level of stupidness knows no boundaries.

From what I heard about portions of the nomination proceedings, she has a "by the law" stance on many issues.  Including the right to vote applying to citizens and 2a being a fundamental right.  But those were only blurbs/excerpts, so may be taken out of context.

The gender "neutrality" thing was interesting. 

Resident Biden promised to nominate a Black Woman to the next Supreme Court vacancy.  Honoring his promise, he nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson.

When asked in the Senate hearing to define "woman", she said, "I can't."

If that's true, then how the hell did she even get the nomination?  Biden said he was nominating a WOMAN.  I guess she'll identify as one if she wants the job.

On a related tangent, by promising to nominate someone based on gender and skin color/race, he preemptively cast doubt on her qualifications to be on the court.  The same problem exists with any affirmative action program.  If someone is hired based on a demographics, it's assumed they may not have been qualified enough to win the job on their qualifications and experience.  The cloud of doubt exists, even if the person is the best qualified of all candidates.

Such a horrible thing to do to the more-qualified people who didn't fit the demographics, to the fully qualified candidates who get hired/nominated and happen to fit the desired demographics, and to the people following  these appointments and expect the process to be fair and legal.  It's illegal to discriminate based on race and gender.  Racial and gender preference IS discrimination against those who don't fit those categories.

The media is saying resisting the announcement of this nominee, which was based on her race and gender, somehow is "racist."

Unbelievable!  Pointing out a race-based nomination is racist!   

Her answer doesn’t come as a surprise. Also heard that she was/is a member of BLM. 

She seams to be pretty sharp and Constitutional influenced.

Maybe Resident Biden should withdraw his nomination.

After all, he promised a woman, and this nominee is unsure if she meets that criteria.

He should start the nomination process over, and this time pick someone who isn't confused as to whether she qualifies as a "Black Woman."

From what I heard about portions of the nomination proceedings, she has a "by the law" stance on many issues.  Including the right to vote applying to citizens and 2a being a fundamental right.  But those were only blurbs/excerpts, so may be taken out of context.

The gender "neutrality" thing was interesting.

I like ur glass half full. There is no way he would nominate someone whos for the 2a.

At most, "i support the 2a, but..."

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I like ur glass half full. There is no way he would nominate someone whos for the 2a.

At most, "i support the 2a, but..."

There are blank spaces in her résumé regarding some issues preoccupying the court,
such as the Second Amendment. But her nomination by a president who favors gun
control laws is a clue to those for whom the issue is paramount.

Biden has “nominated someone who we are confident will determine that common-
sense gun safety laws are constitutional,” Shannon Watts, the founder of Moms Demand
Action, said when Jackson was nominated.

The NRA Institute for Legislative Action, in contrast, saw trouble ahead. “Judge Ketanji
Brown Jackson has never affirmed that the Second Amendment protects the individual,
fundamental right of all Americans to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves
or others,” the group said in a statement.

There is more to go on in other areas, but it all comes with a caveat. Jackson has been
applying the law of her circuit and the Supreme Court. As a justice, she will be free to
advocate for changing precedent.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/19/legal-stances-ketanji-jackson/

It's one thing to be at a lower court, subject to reversal if she makes an error of law or the Constitution.  It's quite another when SHE will be the one deciding if lower decisions are reversed and what precedents are to be created.  Who reverses the Supreme Court's ruling when they make errors?  The answer is, The Supreme Court, but only when a new case is heard and decided upon by non-activist judges.

I like ur glass half full. There is no way he would nominate someone whos for the 2a.

At most, "i support the 2a, but..."

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I didn’t say I support her nomination or know anything about her. I was surprised at not much “outrage” about her nomination until day 3 and gender issues.

What is it you say about a$$uming…

Did "they" force the other guy she's replacing to retire?

SNIP

It's one thing to be at a lower court, subject to reversal if she makes an error of law or the Constitution.  It's quite another when SHE will be the one deciding if lower decisions are reversed and what precedents are to be created.  Who reverses the Supreme Court's ruling when they make errors?  The answer is, The Supreme Court, but only when a new case is heard and decided upon by non-activist judges.

That is very true, and can take decades to even revisit the issue. 

It is also one thing to say something, and actions.  I'm not naive enough to just take someone's word for things.  On the other hand, I'm surprised at the "less fanfare" around this nomination.  I wonder why. . . (rhetorical)

What is it you say about a$$uming…

Please show me where I stated you stated the a$$umption of stating the statement of said a$$sumption. (sarcasm/JJ). Lol, bruh,.

Please show me where I stated you stated the a$$umption of stating the statement of said a$$sumption. (sarcasm/JJ). Lol, bruh,.

I don't play those Tourettes games. . . 

I don't play those Tourettes games. . . 

heads

heads

There's that nasty tick again! It must be contagious!

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

There's that nasty tick again! It must be contagious!

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Watch out , you gonna catch it next....

HEADS, too late

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

The senator's question wasn't worded very well, it came out like a gotcha question and she didn't take the bait. The senator didn't look good for the way she asked the question.

I wasn't entirely satisfied with her answer though, I thought she could have asked the senator to clarify her question rather than say "I can't". I understand a reluctance to answer the question, at least without some context but it is an issue that will likely come up in the supreme court soon. So her answer was lacking but the way the senator posed the question was also lacking so hard to answer.

The senator's question wasn't worded very well, it came out like a gotcha question and she didn't take the bait. The senator didn't look good for the way she asked the question.

I wasn't entirely satisfied with her answer though, I thought she could have asked the senator to clarify her question rather than say "I can't". I understand a reluctance to answer the question, at least without some context but it is an issue that will likely come up in the supreme court soon. So her answer was lacking but the way the senator posed the question was also lacking so hard to answer.

Senator Blackburn gave OODLES of context.  You must not have seen the entire video.

Senator Blackburn gave OODLES of context.  You must not have seen the entire video.

I stand corrected she did give some context for her question. However I would say that Judge Jackson's answer was relatively appropriate. Her answer would have been more precise if she pointed out that it is congress' job to decide definitions in laws, not a judge's job. Additionally if a judge was deciding a case that involved the definition of the word woman it would matter the specifics of the case, that context would be needed. So for example if two different laws defined "woman" slightly different, a judge's decision could depend on the definition as it existed in the law. So in that aspect, Senator Blackburn's question lacked context since it didn't mention a specific law or legal definition.