Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is open race-baiting, and, not surprisingly, from TuKKKer Carlson. He said her nomination would “defile” the justice system and demanded to see her LSAT scores, because she couldn’t possibly have gotten into Harvard Law School legitimately, let alone been qualified for this position.
In reality, Jackson excelled at Harvard; clerked on the district, circuit and Supreme Court levels; worked as a public defender; and was a district court and appeals court judge. Her qualifications match or exceed those of every justice now sitting on the court.
The fact that her “qualifications” are being questioned no doubt has Black people across the country shaking their heads in recognition. They know that African Americans who achieve in White-dominated fields will always have their intelligence and qualifications questioned. Sometimes they even face demands to show their birth certificate.
Of course, presented with an opportunity for race-baiting, Republicans are loath to turn it down. That’s true even if they say “We aren’t talking about race, we’re just talking about affirmative action!”
I expected nothing less from the GOP which is heavily populated with fear mongering racists and misogynists.
You don't have a problem with Ms. Brown saying "Child porn offenders are not pedophiles"?
This is open race-baiting, and, not surprisingly, from TuKKKer Carlson. He said her nomination would “defile” the justice system and demanded to see her LSAT scores, because she couldn’t possibly have gotten into Harvard Law School legitimately, let alone been qualified for this position.
In reality, Jackson excelled at Harvard; clerked on the district, circuit and Supreme Court levels; worked as a public defender; and was a district court and appeals court judge. Her qualifications match or exceed those of every justice now sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States.
The fact that her “qualifications” are being questioned no doubt has Black people across the country shaking their heads in recognition. They know that African Americans who achieve in White-dominated fields will always have their intelligence and qualifications questioned. Sometimes they even face demands to show their birth certificate.
Of course, presented with an opportunity for race-baiting, Republicans are loath to turn it down. That’s true even if they say “We aren’t talking about race, we’re just talking about affirmative action!”
I expected nothing less from the GOP which is heavily populated with fear mongering racists and misogynists.
Nobody cares who you think is a racist anymore. We know - anyone who disagrees with you and the Democrats is racist.
Fortunately, it doesn't work with the vast majority of people anymore.
They know that African Americans who achieve in White-dominated fields will always have their intelligence and qualifications questioned.
Why do you suppose that is? Maybe, just maybe, it's because a certain political party has promoted a program in which people are admitted or promoted to something based on the color of their skin, rather than the depth of their qualifications. Sadly, this places seeds of doubt on the qualifications of anyone with that skin color, no matter how qualified they may be.
Perhaps, if this certain political party would stop advocating for rewarding people based on the color of their skin and instead insist that people be admitted or promoted based on their knowledge and experience and qualifications, the shadow of a doubt that hangs over others of that same skin color might go away.
........and it’s my honor to introduce to the country a daughter of former public school teachers, a proven consensus builder, an accomplished lawyer, a distinguished jurist — one of the nation’s most — on one of the nation’s most prestigious courts. My nominee for the United States Supreme Court is Judge Ketanji Jackson.
........You know, four weeks ago, when a member of the Court — a friend of mine; we used to work together in the Senate — Justice Stephen Breyer, announced his retirement, I said then choosing someone to serve on the United States Supreme Court is one of the most serious constitutional responsibilities a President has. And I mean it.
I promised the process would be rigorous, that I would select a nominee worthy of Justice Breyer’s legacy of excellence and decency — someone extremely qualified, with a brilliant legal mind, with the utmost character and integrity, which are equally as important.
And during this process, I looked for someone who, like Justice Breyer, has a pragmatic understanding that the law must work for the American people. Someone who has the historical perspective to understand that the Constitution is a resilient charter of liberty. Someone with the wisdom to appreciate that the Constitution protects certain inalienable rights — rights that fall within the most fundamental personal freedoms that our society recognizes.
.........someone with extraordinary character, who will bring to the Supreme Court an independent mind, uncompromising integrity, and with a strong moral compass and the courage to stand up for what she thinks is right.
I’ve admired these traits of pragmatism, historical perspective, wisdom, character in the jurists nominated by Republican presidents as well as Democratic presidents.
And today, I’m pleased to introduce to the American people a candidate who continues in this great tradition.
........and it’s my honor to introduce to the country a daughter of former public school teachers, a proven consensus builder, an accomplished lawyer, a distinguished jurist — one of the nation’s most — on one of the nation’s most prestigious courts. My nominee for the United States Supreme Court is Judge Ketanji Jackson.
........You know, four weeks ago, when a member of the Court — a friend of mine; we used to work together in the Senate — Justice Stephen Breyer, announced his retirement, I said then choosing someone to serve on the United States Supreme Court is one of the most serious constitutional responsibilities a President has. And I mean it.
I promised the process would be rigorous, that I would select a nominee worthy of Justice Breyer’s legacy of excellence and decency — someone extremely qualified, with a brilliant legal mind, with the utmost character and integrity, which are equally as important.
And during this process, I looked for someone who, like Justice Breyer, has a pragmatic understanding that the law must work for the American people. Someone who has the historical perspective to understand that the Constitution is a resilient charter of liberty. Someone with the wisdom to appreciate that the Constitution protects certain inalienable rights — rights that fall within the most fundamental personal freedoms that our society recognizes.
.........someone with extraordinary character, who will bring to the Supreme Court an independent mind, uncompromising integrity, and with a strong moral compass and the courage to stand up for what she thinks is right.
I’ve admired these traits of pragmatism, historical perspective, wisdom, character in the jurists nominated by Republican presidents as well as Democratic presidents.
And today, I’m pleased to introduce to the American people a candidate who continues in this great tradition.
Nice words, to be sure. Too bad he didn't give this speech when he was talking about what kind of people he would nominate to the Court. Nope, the only qualifications he mentioned were that the person be African American and female. Listen for yourself and hear him say it in his own words.
I wonder if she got into Harvard the same way she is getting into SCOTUS. Affirmative action, quotas?
Hopefully the remainder of the SCOTUS members can hold on until 2024. Clarence Thomas might be the next one to fall, but hopefully republicans will have taken over the house and senate by then.
Of course. Same as Obama and every other black person.
Surely even you can discern the difference between declining to hold a hearing on a doomed nomination and accusing someone of participating in gang rape as a high school student.
Then again, I'm probably giving you way too much credit.
Yes declining to even allow a floor vote on a presidents selection is the nuance I missed. If this selection of such a radical progressive like Garland was so “doomed” what was the problem with a debate and a vote, you know the old fashioned way like we have done for a hundred years. Instead we had to do without a ninth justice for a year.
Yeah, because the Democrats wouldn't have done that, if the roles were reversed....
They haven’t, can you name a republican appointment that was blocked out of committee.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. (half joking here)
