Soo…he’s racist because he went out of his way to nominate a black woman who might not have been fully qualified?

So he filtered out whites. All you have shown here is that he is racist to white people.

No, it’s a legitimate guess. The Know Nothings are real.

The fact that it also describes your accuracy rate for tonight’s posting is just a happy bonus.:wink:

i never said even once that his pick was evidence of racism. thats your strawman. biden is and always has been a racist, plenty of evidence for that. this? no, but then neither is his favorite ice cream. someone could say his affirmative action methodology shows the soft bigotry of low expectations, and they may have a point.

1 Like

Okay, BUT: it is not my strawman, your fellow cons dragged it here.

Have ANY of those OPPOSED to her BEING on the COURT actually READ her RECORD as a JUDGE? I mean her ENTIRE History?

That IS what Supreme Court nominations and HEARINGS are all about, yes? “JUDGING” from PAST "DECISIONS?

Ain’t that WHY Cavanagh was confirmed?

Didn’t some of on the right have no “issue” with him? Even though he had a “suspect” past? Women coming forth to tell their stories…hours upon HOURS of testimony?

And some on the left were WILDLY opposed to his confirmation?

But “no biggie”, right? He got confirmed… based on his “previous judgements” yes?

What has she EVER exhibited/DONE as a LAWYER, is against the “LAW of the LAND”, that is TWISTING some of y’all so?

WHY is her history of being a lawyer and WHO she defended an issue?

LINDSAY GRAHAM (biggest flipflooper I’ve never seen in my 62 years)?

Your side thinks its “OKAY” to ask her OPINION… on some ■■■■ she may THINK/have on CRT (Made up issue for the right…). abortion, voting rights, a ■■■■■■■ BOOK about "babies and race…whatever…

Anyone that has EVER been NOMINATED to the SUPREME COURT have NEVER been asked ANY the KINDS of questions this woman has been asked! Nor been subjected to whatever ELSE Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz was going on about!

Dog Whistles!

Most of some on the right can HEAR them but don’t even understand what they are RESPONDING too!

yea, its a shame he felt that to get to a black woman he first had to filter out anyone else first instead of just asking for the best qualified people and then choosing a black woman from amongst them.

Oh, whatever. :roll_eyes:

By any reasonable standard, KBJ is supremely qualified.

possibly, but from now on she’ll be the affirmitive action justice.

1 Like

You say that like it’s a bad thing.

it is

:rofl::+1:t4:

So did progs.

Obama nominated an old white dude.

I have to wait for someone else?

This pretends you can create a ordered list. You can’t at this level.

Well no. That’s not true.

Kasler v. Lockyer

Hi-Voltage Wire-Works, Inc. v. City of San Jose

1 Like

“Sat?” She’s not on the SCOTUS.

If you put stock in what a lady named Ford from 35 years ago had to say, that those also there at the time denied, who made many mistakes regarding her details…that was obviously a disgraceful sham, where another even admitted she intentionally lied and now attempt to compare this to a another woman who can’t even tell you what a woman is? IMO…the two are on opposite ends of the spectrum.

They asked her about her decisions and punishments. Here’s an example; the Congressional mandate is to be sentenced to 97 to 120 months, the prosecutor went much lower and recommended 27 and she doled out 3. This happened time and time and time again…so much so…it stands out. Do you realize that not once did she follow her prosecutors recommendations for punishment and in every case, her punishment was significantly lower?

2 Likes

She’s a Crit.

2 Likes

I’m glad her daughters didn’t have to be escorted from the room.

2 Likes

Marsha Blackburn told Judge Jackson on DAY ONE what she was going to ask her about when it came her time to question Judge Jackson on DAY TWO.

From the Washington Examiner:

"That’s what Blackburn said on Day One of the hearings. So it should have been a surprise to no one that she raised the topic when it came her time to question Jackson on Day Two. Blackburn brought up a case called United States v. Virginia, in which the U.S. government sued Virginia over the Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admissions policy. The Supreme Court struck down the policy in a 7-1 vote, and Blackburn quoted from the majority opinion written by liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“Supposed ‘inherent differences’ are no longer accepted as a ground for race or national origin classifications,” Ginsburg wrote. “Physical differences between men and women, however, are enduring: ‘The two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one sex is different from a community composed of both.’” Those were Ginsburg’s words that Blackburn quoted. She then asked Jackson, “Do you agree with Justice Ginsburg that there are physical differences between men and women that are enduring?”

Blackburn’s question was fair, on point, and, given her opening remarks the day before, entirely predictable. But Jackson was not prepared.

"Senator, respectfully, I’m not familiar with that particular quote or case, so it’s hard for me to comment as to whether — "

“Alright,” said Blackburn. “I’d love to get your opinion on that. And you can submit that.” That meant that Jackson, as all nominees do, could submit a written answer for the record later. Blackburn continued, “Do you interpret Justice Ginsburg’s meaning of men and women as male and female?”

“Again, because I don’t know the case, I don’t know how I interpret it,” Jackson answered. “I need to read the whole thing.”

Blindsided my foot! Now it’s Marsha Blackburn’s fault that Jackson is not suitable for a Supreme Court Justice.

3 Likes