Ketanji Brown Jackson Nominated to the US Supreme Court (1 Viewer)

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 13:28
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,777
He [Biden] also does things like declaring that the next justice he appoints to the Supreme Court will be a black woman. This is of course an outright violation of our employment laws that prohibit discrimination based on race and sex. He just should have shut his mouth instead of using this as a campaign promise. WHO CARES what color a person's skin is? WHO CARES what their genitalia look like? Neither have anything to do with anything let alone interpreting the law. The message this kind of announcement sends is downright evil. If I were a black woman, If I had any integrity or self respect, I would never accept a job that was only offered because I checked the right boxes. As a woman, I have faced my fair share of discrimination. I was once offered a job because I was a woman and the company had really poor EEO (Equal Employment Opportunity) stats so they really needed to hire a female manager. Of course I didn't know it at the time because I was qualified for the position but my boss had been pressured into hiring me and although he never came out and told me that he was pressured into choosing me, he treated me with such distain and disrespect it was a toxic work environment and I left within three months because as it turns out, I was working on their new HR (Human Resources) system so I was privy to the the HR stats and not being stupid, figured out why my boss hated me so.
There is a deeper, darker, and more nefarious implication of Ms Jackson's nomination to the US Supreme Court. On the surface, it is blatant disregard for EEO legislation as pointed out above. Moreover, this nomination is an outright rejection of the goals of the Civil Rights movement envisioned by Martin Luther King. King proclaimed that: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." Ms Jackson is being nominated because of the: "color of their skin".

This nomination is abhorrent as Biden has proposed to initiate (anti-White) racist polices. In his inauguration speech Biden declared "war" on (phantom) White supremacy, established that the federal decision process would be based on "equity", an Orwellian Newspeak term for making decisions based on race (not merit), and reaffirming the nomination of a Black female to the US Supreme Court. Based on connecting these invidual "dots" one can surmise that Ms. Jackson won't be making legal decisions solely based on the Constitution, but that her decisions will be heavily tainted towards advocating and implementing a "social justice warrior" perspective. This "seed' of disparaging the US Constitution as a basis for making Supreme Court decisions has already been laid by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who famously stated: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The appointment, should Ms. Jackson be confirmed, will: 1) minimizing the Constitution as the basis for making decisions, and 2) further politicize the Court. The Justices making decisions based on ideology and not the Constitution.

... Joe Biden has made it clear that his top priority is paying back the liberal Arabella Advisors dark money network that spent over one billion dollars to help elect him and Senate Democrats.

These Arabella-advised groups seek nothing less than the appointment of politicians in robes who will rubber stamp their left-wing political agendas from the bench.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:28
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
36,372
And if she even accepts the nomination we know what she is.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 13:28
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,777
This is just one example of Democrats demanding that others treat those on the Democratic side with civility. Yet when Democrats are on the offensive, they will toss out civility and go for every dirty trick and personal smear conceivable to bring down those the Democrats consider to be "enemies of the state". Now, the Democrats do an about face and with a strait face demand civility?!?!?!

At the 1:20 mark, in the background there is a picture of Senator Mazie Hirono from Hawaii. Her adversarial performance at the Kavanugh hearing was an utter disgrace. Too bad, Gowdy didn't highlight that. Understandable as the focus of the monologue was Jackson.
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:28
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
36,372
The fact that she accepted the nomination which was made only because she is black and a woman shows what she is. No self respecting person who actually believes in the Constitution or equal rights would demean herself by accepting the premise that she couldn't make it on merit. Which I guess, tells us that in her heart, she knows she doesn't deserve the job and would never have been nominated had she not checked the right boxes at the right time in history.
 

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 13:28
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,777
The important part of the video begins around the 10 minute mark, where Will Cain speaks. Fortunately you can fast forward.
Two points stand out in Cain's monologue:
  • Ketanji Jackson refused to define what a "woman" is. The simple answer, a person with XX chromosomes.There are numerous negative implications would appear to make her unsuitable to be a Supreme Court Judge.based on her refusal to define what a "woman" is. She is also demonstrating a deep misunderstanding of science. She is simply rolling with the current fanaticism of gender fluidity, which is "destroying" women's sports as one example. On a more humorous side, if there is no definition for the word "woman", then how can her nomination as a Black woman be considered historic? For all we know Jackson is really a White male who identifies as a "Black woman".
  • Cain highlights that Jackson responses imply that her judicial philosophy (when given discretion) are based on what is considered "right" at the moment by the radical left. The US Constitution is supposed to be used by a Supreme Court Justice as the standard of review, not one's "feeling" about right or wrong. Does this mean, that if she becomes a Supreme Court Justice, that she would work towards dismantling the Constitution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since posting; these video clips have become available. Also note, on the Tucker Carlson clip, at the 11 minute mark, that Carlson was censored (canceled) by Twitter. The Laura Ingraham clip is an excellent review of how Jackson should not be placed on the Supreme Court based on a lack of legal expertise and vagueness concerning judicial philosophy. Or to put it another way, Jackson makes decisions based on personal rationale (judicial activism), not the written law.
 
Last edited:

Steve R.

Retired
Local time
Today, 13:28
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
3,777
Unfortunately the Senate voted to confirm her nomination.
However, this should not be considered an historic event as being "Black" and "Female" are now undefined terms. Even if one considers that "Black" and "Female" have actual context, Biden's nomination would then have been a racist act as she is being "hired" based on the race and female check boxes.

Previously Biden blocked the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the US Supreme Court, who could have been the first Black female judge. Biden's action was reprehensible. A demonstration that Biden, in a negative manner, is a self-serving political chameleon changing his opinion based on politics..
"So, when Biden tries to bask in the glory of his historic nomination, remember Janice Rogers Brown — the Black woman who does not sit on the Supreme Court today because of Biden’s disgraceful obstruction."
 

Pat Hartman

Super Moderator
Staff member
Local time
Today, 13:28
Joined
Feb 19, 2002
Messages
36,372
Chalk another one up for the return of racism:( Where the content of your character matters not but the color of your skin is everything.
 

D_Walla

New member
Local time
Today, 18:28
Joined
Aug 1, 2021
Messages
26
Unfortunately the Senate voted to confirm her nomination.
However, this should not be considered an historic event as being "Black" and "Female" are now undefined terms. Even if one considers that "Black" and "Female" have actual context, Biden's nomination would then have been a racist act as she is being "hired" based on the race and female check boxes.

Previously Biden blocked the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the US Supreme Court, who could have been the first Black female judge. Biden's action was reprehensible. A demonstration that Biden, in a negative manner, is a self-serving political chameleon changing his opinion based on politics..
It appears that it was a nomination to the Court of Appeal that Biden filibustered, and not to the Supreme Court (link). I would add that it is not as though Biden singlehandedly-blocked the nomination; he voted against Justice Brown's appointment along with the rest of the Democratic caucus. Also, it's worth noting the congressional record referenced by the AEI article that you linked to - that's a very long list of individuals/organisations that opposed Justice Brown's appointment, including: the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, 200 law professors, and the National Bar Association, and quite a few others.
 

AccessBlaster

Registered User.
Local time
Today, 10:28
Joined
May 22, 2010
Messages
4,707
Clarence Thomas Receives Invite To Celebration Of First Black Supreme Court Justice

1649548813242.png


:D
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom