Confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson (2 Viewers)

[MT15]

Hearings begin today. The smear has already started:

 

[SystemShock]

Why not? What does it mean when it comes to being on the supreme court?

This NPR article summarizes it well

Would You Vote For An Atheist? Tell The Truth

Many demographic groups remain underrepresented in high-level government positions, including atheists — at least those out of the theistic closet. Commentator Tania Lombrozo wonders why atheists appear to be distrusted by the electorate.

www.npr.org

A couple of quotes from it:

In another national survey, respondents considered how much members of various groups agreed with their "vision of American society." A whopping 39.6 percent indicated that atheists agreed with their vision "not at all," eschewing moderate options like "mostly" and "somewhat." Respondents chose "not at all" less often for every other group considered, including Muslims (26.3 percent), homosexuals (22.6 percent), conservative Christians (13.5 percent), Hispanics (7.6 percent), Jews (7.4 percent) and African Americans (4.6 percent). When it came to welcoming a potential son- or daughter-in-law, atheists faired even worse: almost half of respondents (47.6 percent) would disapprove if their child wanted to marry an atheist.

In a set of clever experiments, the researchers found that atheists were trusted less than the average person, less even than gay men (who are themselves distrusted relative to "people in general"). Atheists were more strongly associated with dishonest behavior than Christians, Muslims, homosexuals, Jews or feminists. Only one tested category didn't differ significantly from atheists when it came to distrust: rapists.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

This NPR article summarizes it well

Would You Vote For An Atheist? Tell The Truth

Many demographic groups remain underrepresented in high-level government positions, including atheists — at least those out of the theistic closet. Commentator Tania Lombrozo wonders why atheists appear to be distrusted by the electorate.

www.npr.org

A couple of quotes from it:

What does any of that have to do with the Supreme Court? We, the people, don't vote them in. Further, I would say that those who believe the bible is inspired by a supernatural being may be less likely to be able to form thoughtful constitutional interpretations.

 

[Taurus]

Great op-Ed from Politico:

“Fourth, in contrast to the attacks on her, Jackson described a methodology toward judging that might have surprised her liberal supporters with its moderation, even conservatism. She declared that her methodology was marked by acute awareness of the limits on her authority, informed by her years as a trial judge. Her three-pronged approach was designed so that she would “stay in my lane,” she said, to leave policymaking to Congress. In answering questions posed by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, she said, “I do not believe that there is a living constitution that is infused with the policy views of the day.”

She uses the methods of conservative “originalists” and “textualists” paying close attention to the “original public meaning” of texts. But she refuses to be labelled or ideological about her methods, which is much closer to the actual practice of current justices. Perhaps Jackson’s great care and transparency in adjudicating explains why she has been endorsed by a wide array of voices, including the Fraternal Order of Police and conservative retired Judges Thomas Griffith, J. Michael Luttig and David Levi. She is impartial and utterly in the mainstream of American jurisprudence. With nearly 600 trial court opinions she was reversed or vacated only 14 times, well below judicial averages, according to the Alliance for Justice.

And yet this brilliant, even-handed jurist who has ruled for and against presidents and prosecutors was cast as a soft-on-crime, child-predator-enabling, critical-race-theory believing, left-wing activist by the GOP’s most arch political performers.

This is dangerous character assassination. In particular, the child-predator-enabler mythology has been thoroughly debunked, including in the conservative National Review. Most telling, Republicans have voted to confirm conservative judicial nominees that engaged in the same widespread judicial practice of departing downward from child pornography sentencing guidelines that Jackson was excoriated for.

Again, these hearings provided Republicans an opportunity to confirm a candidate that extolls many of the values and practices that they claim to cherish as well as an opportunity to exercise the color-blindness they claim. Instead, they offered the disturbing optics of mainly southern, white men lecturing, interrupting and sometimes yelling at a gracious, poised Black woman.

If no Republicans vote to confirm this eminently qualified Black female to the highest Court, it will send a searing message about what the GOP has become.”

Opinion | The Jackson Hearings Were an Opportunity for the GOP. They Didn’t Take It. — POLITICO

If no Republicans vote to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson, it will say more about their party than the nominee.

apple.news

What 'searing message'????? They've been saying it right out loud since 2008. Louder still since 2016. If you haven't yet gotten the message that the GOP is for straight, white, Christians you're effing deaf.

 

[Taurus]

What does any of that have to do with the Supreme Court? Further, I would say that those who believe the bible is inspired by a supernatural being are less likely to be able to form thoughtful constitutional interpretations.

Because somewhere along the line, in order to become a SCOTUS nominee, you have to have been elected to something.
An 'out' atheist ain't gettin' elected. To anything.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Because somewhere along the line, in order to become a SCOTUS nominee, you have to have been elected to something.
An 'out' atheist ain't gettin' elected. To anything.

Nonsense. I have absolutely no doubt that there are federal judges right now who are atheists.

 

[MT15]

And, just like clockwork, Q crazies are calling for Jackson to be hanged. Cruz, Hawley and Graham knew they were pandering to the crazies. They did it anyway.

 

[coldseat]

Sadly, this whole ordeal just reinforces to persons who look like me that no matter how successful you become, no matter what heights you ascend to, there will always be a portion of this country that will always see us as naggers. This is more than political theater and partisan bickering. This is a very pointed, coordinated attempt to paint this woman as a pedophile sympathizer, just an absolutely vile thing to do. Without merit.

My niece is out of school with Covid. I encouraged her to watch the Judge's confirmation hearing, thinking it could be an uplifting experience for a young black female teenager. She texts me, rather disgusted, asking why did I want her to watch "some white men talk down to a black woman and accuse her of being nice to people who hurt kids." I'm like surely that isn't all you saw or heard. She's like no but it was hard to be proud of her seeing her talked to like that every few hours.

What do I say to that...?

This article made me think of your niece. I hope that she will find some positive out of the stupidity/racism we saw yesterday. As much hope as I lost in America because of the Trump years and since then, I often have to remind myself that if we lose all hope, nothing can ever change. Here's hoping that the road you niece will have to take in whatever path she choses will be easier and more equitable than the road KBJ has had to take, which was easier and more equitable than the road those that came before her had to take.

And all the possibility and promise her nomination exemplifies has reached even Jackson herself, who said on Wednesday she was "touched," by the support. When offering advice to the legions who will undoubtedly come after her, Jackson told a story about her first months at Harvard University, so far from her native Florida.
"I was really questioning um, "Do I belong here? Can I make it in this environment?" And I was walking through the yard in the evening and a Black woman I did not know was passing me on the sidewalk. And she looked at me and I guess she knew how I was feeling and she leaned over as we crossed and said, 'Persevere,'" Jackson recounted. "I would tell them to persevere."

How young Black women see Jackson’s nomination | CNN Politics

When 16-year-old Samiya Williams first saw Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson standing next to President Biden as he formally announced her nomination in February, she knew that one day she would follow in Jackson’s footsteps.

www.cnn.com

 

[SystemShock]

What does any of that have to do with the Supreme Court? We, the people, don't vote them in.

We the people vote in the people who nominate people for the SC and who vote in or reject SC justices. No Republican or Democrat president would even dare nominate an atheist for the SC. People still are made to swear hand on Bible before office "so help them God". The $1 bill says in caps "in God we trust".

Further, I would say that those who believe the bible is inspired by a supernatural being may be less likely to be able to form thoughtful constitutional interpretations.

That is a blanket generalization I cannot agree with.

Even though there is some overlap in principle with what we are seeing in Brown's hearings, I don't want to derail the thread... I may post a rant on the philosophy and religion board about it. I'm due for one anyway.

 

[Optimus Prime]

Tucker has the uncanny ability to make it so no matter how little you think of him, he makes you think even less
=============================


Fox News host Tucker Carlson wants to know: If Supreme Court Justice nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson really represents Black women, then why doesn’t she think like a street rapper?

After the Senate finished its first day of questioning in Jackson’s confirmation hearings on Tuesday, Carlson complained on his show that the nominee’s views “really seem like those of every affluent white liberal I’ve ever met.”

“If you want a Black candidate – I’m serious, I think the country would get better representation from…,” the Fox News host trailed off before saying, “She’s just a carbon copy of everyone in the neighborhood I spent my life in,” referring to La Jolla in San Diego.

Then Carlson threw in an extra helping of racism when his guest, right-wing commentator Clay Travis, claimed that Democrats were angling for “cosmetic diversity” with Jackson’s nomination.

“If you picked a rap star off the street, that person’s views would more likely be closer to the views of the average American than the views of this woman, I would argue,” Carlson said.............

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[MT15]

We the people vote in the people who nominate people for the SC and who vote in or reject SC justices. No Republican or Democrat president would even dare nominate an atheist for the SC. People still are made to swear hand on Bible before office "so help them God". The $1 bill says in caps "in God we trust".


That is a blanket generalization I cannot agree with.

Even though there is some overlap in principle with what we are seeing in Brown's hearings, I don't want to derail the thread... I may post a rant on the philosophy and religion board about it. I'm due for one anyway.

I didn’t think people elected to office are required to swear on a Bible. Are they?

No, looked it up, it’s against the Constitution. Nobody is forced to swear in on any religious book at all.

 

[SystemShock]

I didn’t think people elected to office are required to swear on a Bible. Are they?

No, looked it up, it’s against the Constitution. Nobody is forced to swear in on any religious book at all.

Regardless of what the Constitution says, not doing it is very much career suicide in most parts in the U.S.

 

[SystemShock]

Tucker has the uncanny ability to make it so no matter how little you think of him, he makes you think even less
=============================


Fox News host Tucker Carlson wants to know: If Supreme Court Justice nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson really represents Black women, then why doesn’t she think like a street rapper?

After the Senate finished its first day of questioning in Jackson’s confirmation hearings on Tuesday, Carlson complained on his show that the nominee’s views “really seem like those of every affluent white liberal I’ve ever met.”

“If you want a Black candidate – I’m serious, I think the country would get better representation from…,” the Fox News host trailed off before saying, “She’s just a carbon copy of everyone in the neighborhood I spent my life in,” referring to La Jolla in San Diego.

Then Carlson threw in an extra helping of racism when his guest, right-wing commentator Clay Travis, claimed that Democrats were angling for “cosmetic diversity” with Jackson’s nomination.

“If you picked a rap star off the street, that person’s views would more likely be closer to the views of the average American than the views of this woman, I would argue,” Carlson said.............

MSN

www.msn.com

I can actually taste the racism, like a heavy French cream.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

We the people vote in the people who nominate people for the SC and who vote in or reject SC justices. No Republican or Democrat president would even dare nominate an atheist for the SC. People still are made to swear hand on Bible before office "so help them God". The $1 bill says in caps "in God we trust".


That is a blanket generalization I cannot agree with.

Even though there is some overlap in principle with what we are seeing in Brown's hearings, I don't want to derail the thread... I may post a rant on the philosophy and religion board about it. I'm due for one anyway.

"I don't want to derail the thread..."

Point taken.

Let me just say this. "Atheist" is a word that has come to mean, in America anyway, someone who gets mileage out of not believing. Someone who sort waves an atheistic flag. Most nonbelievers aren't like that. They just don't believe. They don't advertise it. Further, swearing on a bible has nothing to do with whether you believe or not. If it did it would mean that only a Christian could appear in court, or be sworn into a number of offices. That is not the case.

To your point of not derailing the thread, I'll leave it at that and not comment further.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

I didn’t think people elected to office are required to swear on a Bible. Are they?

No, looked it up, it’s against the Constitution. Nobody is forced to swear in on any religious book at all.

Thanks for that, didn't know. It should be that way.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Regardless of what the Constitution says............................

You do realize that congressmen and women sware to uphold the constitution?

 

[FullMonte]

In a shocking (yeah...right) turn of events, Mitch McConnell has announced that will not vote for Jackson because she refused to say that she was against packing the court.

 

[SystemShock]

You do realize that congressmen and women sware to uphold the constitution?

No!!!!! Really?!?!?!?!?!?!? Mind blown.... who knew.

 

[bird]

In a shocking (yeah...right) turn of events, Mitch McConnell has announced that will not vote for Jackson because she refused to say that she was against packing the court.

”Packing the court” is a bullschlitz term. It is also meaningless when applied to expanding the court as there is nothing stated regarding the number of justices. If anything McConnell is guilty of that in the manner in which he manipulated confirmations by flocking Obama.