DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Justice Breyer to retire

They cited actual papers and opinions that Kavanaugh himself had made and written. Your claim seems to be that what he decided and wrote mean nothing because of the source that reported those facts. The only one throwing a tantrum and made up scenario to discredit the things he did and said is you. Would it make you feel better if I found those same set of facts via a different source? I mean nothing would change except who is reporting these facts but if it would actually make you feel better.....

I am walking in to this at the end, and may not have all the facts or context, but no, it wouldn't make a difference which source you quoted.

The only caution I would add is that word context again. Nearly any opinion written is fairly long and detailed. It isn't hard to take a comment from one and craft it to fit another meaning without the entire context of the quoted portion.

I am not saying that is if you, or your source did, I didn't read the comment. I am saying this more as a general comment.

j/c…

Not much of a surprise. She was the front runner from the beginning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson

that resume is stacked.

Well those people are morons, and not what was being discussed here.

As usual, resume won't be a possible sticking point. You can look at any sitting justice and see an impressive resume. You don't get to that point without. Resume is largely a starting point for any position.

If resume was the standard, then anybody on any court or job should meet our approval. Right?

I am not making any judgements one way or the other.... just saying.

Ketanji Brown Jackson was recently appointed and confirmed to the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit. Her nomination to the Supreme Court will open up a vacancy for Biden to appoint another judge to what is considered the second most powerful court.

She has to be confirmed, but she probably will.

She absolutely will be confirmed.

absolutely, she looks to be a good candidate and should be confirmed and I hope she does a great job upholding the laws of this country.



The only issue I have ever had with the whole thing is that Biden said was basically if you ain't black and a woman don't bother applying.

I agree. She just has to be.

I hope it isn't that cut and dried. Until she speaks, none of us have any clue as to her views.

I agree, she probably will be confirmed, and probably should. My comments weren't meant to be inflamatory, but some of the replies sure seem a bit slanted in that direction.

It is what it is....carry on.

My reply to your post was just a play on what you wrote and the two ways you can read "she has to be confirmed". Yes she needs to go through due process. I expect she will do great. Somewhere along the lines someone will grandstand and try to infer she isn't fit. That's the nature of politics in 2022.

We have seen that with court picks a lot longer than that.

Sadly that's what it boils down to. "Her views". The qualifications will show to be meaningless.

Honestly, this should 100% meaningless because a Supreme Court Justice should only read the law and make logical decisions based upon how the law is written without the interference of their political views.

I agree with you. That's why when presidents say they will only appoint what a nominee believes instead of how they would rule on law, it's very partisan. At the same time I think we must consider how flawed the constitution was in the beginning and how many times it's needed to be changed since 1776.

But even within the Law there are areas of interpretation. And that can be stretched very far, further than I ever realized.

I recently went to watch a production of "What the Constitution Means to Me" - I recommend going to see it if you get the chance.

In it I leaned that in a 1994 judgement Justice Scalia debated the definition of the word "Shall" .... It had a major impact and set precedent and I find it shocking.

https://www.denverpost.com/2005/07/14/what-does-shall-mean/

That's a terrible ruling.

The qualifications aren't meaningless. She wouldn't have been nominated without. Her views are important. Why in the world would you think they aren't?

Just because a person meets minimum qualifications for the job doesn't mean she is fit for the job. I don't know if she is or isn't. You somehow do?.

Well I can see you are a hard core supporter of hers by all the positive posts you have made in this thread.

I don't know. I had to pay to open the site. I guess you subscribe to the Denver Post.

Like I said, I don't know much about her. I don't have a position one way or the other at this point.

To me, that is the only position to take at this point.

I can agree with that. I don't know her from Adam, and usually form my opinions as the facts come out in the confirmation. Would have give ACB the nod of acceptance, had the pick not been stolen, like garlands spot. Kavanaugh was not a good pick and should not have been confirmed IMHO. Gorsuch, even though I dislike his politics, was qualified as well, but unfortunately his seat will always be tainted by the theft of the spot by McConnell. SO, setting politics aside, I want to know the person as much as I can before I decide how I feel about them. I don't truly like the left leaning Justices either, but they are at least qualified. The only justices I would unseat if I could is Kavanaugh and Thomas. I don't think Kavanaugh deserves the seat, and Thomas' cringe-worthy confirmation would have been a big NOPE from me, if I had a vote.

She meets all of joes qualifications....dems will always vote dems and the repubs wont challege anything because the dems already have the race and sexism cards drawn and pointed at their temples.. dont waste everyone time...rubber stamp this through.

It allowed me to read it for free. Maybe it's a communist web site.

Minimum qualifications? You must be thinking of someone else.

I think most understood it meant minimum qualifications for a Supreme Court justice since that is what was being discussed.

Since you didn't because you are just too dense or argumentative, now I have explained it for you. Following the bouncing ball of a ongoing conversation isn't all that hard.

I'd like to think being dense isn't the problem, so why not just get with the program and go with the conversation like a normal human?

You are the one that tried to minimize her to having the "minimum qualifications". I follow along with those type of things just fine. I know exactly when someone uses phrases to try and minimalize someone else. Maybe you don't even think about it when you do it. But that's what you did.

carry on

Agree... while I applaud nominating a black woman to the bench.... I would have preferred he publicly state that he would select the best candidate... but whatever... I don't know anything about Judge Jackson, so I appreciate the link above

Biden shouldn't get applauded for this. We could have had a black women on the SC in 2005, but Senator Biden threatened to filibuster the nomination, so Alito was nominated instead.

Yeah, well you might want to look at why instead of restricting it along racial lines. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposed Janice Rogers Brown’s nomination “based on her record on the California Supreme Court where she exhibited ‘a strong, persistent, and disturbing hostility toward affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of individuals with disabilities, workers’ rights, and the fairness of the criminal justice system.’”

So no, it had nothing to do with her "being black".

Oppose the Confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown

https://civilrights.org/resource/oppose-the-confirmation-of-janice-rogers-brown/#

I don't think that Clarence Thomas has made any earth shattering civil rights decisions by being the second black Supreme Court justice. It probably falls the other way.

What matters more is how the person would align with the interpretation of the law and the constitution.

Just as Amy Coney Barrett would not be a vote for the pro-life crowd.

At this level political philosophy matters more that the persons race or ethnicity.

But if they think that a Black woman would be more inclusive, so be it. Personally they would be just as served by having former Alabama Senator Doug Jones (a white southern male), who was a strong civil rights attorney (as an example).