Ketanji Brown Jackson Nominated to the US Supreme Court (3 Viewers)

Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act against the backdrop of a world that was generally not accessible to people with disabilities. And so it was discriminatory in effect because these folks were not able to access these buildings. And it didn’t matter whether the person who built the building or the person who owned the building intended for them to be exclusionary; that’s irrelevant. Congress said, the facilities have to be made equally open to people with disabilities if readily possible. I guess I don’t understand why that’s not what’s happening here. [Emphasis added]

The idea in Section 2 is that we are responding to current-day manifestations of past and present decisions that disadvantage minorities and make it so that they don’t have equal access to the voting system. Right? They’re disabled. In fact ,we use the word ‘disabled’ in [Milliken v. Bradley]. We say that’s a way in which these processes are not equally open. So I don’t understand why it matters whether the state intended to do that. What Congress is saying is if it is happening … you gotta fix it. [Emphasis added]
Is it the intent of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to use this line of thinking to assert that Blacks are "disabled" and therefore require continued preferential treatment by the government to make them "equal"?

On the Gutfeld! show, video unfortunately not available, Tyrus made an excellent observation. Justice Jackson (a Black woman) made it to the the US Supreme Court. Considering that, why would Blacks still require continued preferential treatment from the government to make them "equal". The time for special treatment is over and needs to end.

The discussion did bring-up Jackson's remark that she could not define what a woman was. Was this a sympathetic remark to appease to the Woke crowd? Does it imply that she secretly favors continued governmental programs that give unearned preferences to Blacks? Recall Justice Sotomayor's racist comment: "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." So there a incidental racist backdrops to the decision making process of the Justices on the Supreme Court.

Jim Norton had another very valid take. That Justice Jackson simply made an bad analogy and was not asserting that Blacks were actually "disabled".
 
The analogy wasn't even that bad, if one understood exactly what was being compared. However, it did give rise to the clumsy politically damning fact that she compared blacks to disabled people - but what she was comparing was the idea of de facto discrimination without intent, which is a perfectly good comparison.

But yes - the time for Special Treatment for all minorities needs to end and never should have been started. Put people on an even playing field, minus life's obvious curveballs (which applies to everyone, not just minorities - I for example grew up poor, does that mean I should get Special Treatment?)
 
Is it the intent of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to use this line of thinking to assert that Blacks are "disabled" and therefore require continued preferential treatment by the government to make them "equal"?
I believe that was her intent. It follows the logic exhibited by racist Democrats who think Blacks are too stupid to find the DMZ to get a free photo ID for voting.
 
I have seen a YouTube video suggesting that KBJ may be in over her head because of her tendency to file single-author dissents and to use tortuous logic in those single-person rulings. The video likened it to a new kid on the block trying real hard to fit in with the old guard, the veterans on the block.
 
I have seen a YouTube video suggesting that KBJ may be in over her head because of her tendency to file single-author dissents and to use tortuous logic in those single-person rulings.
Too late for that to matter. She was the epitome of a DEI hire. But she's in for life, no way to get rid of her that I know of. This is 100% the fault of the Republicans who didn't block her nomination. Feckless pieces of dog poo. They knew she was a DEI hire and they knew there were far better options out there for a "black female". It didn't need to be her. It could have been someone incidentally competent.
 
She was the epitome of a DEI hire.
That's one of the problems with Republicans. They will "accept" what Democrats demand when the Democrats are in charge. Democrats don't do that. Democrats play dirty. Democrats shutdown the government as an attempt to trick Republicans into conceding before healthcare budget negotiations have even started. Republicans need to reject this ploy.
But she's in for life, no way to get rid of her that I know of.
She can be impeached. Republicans will need to find some dirt on her. The problem, of course, Republicans don't have enough votes in the Senate.
 
Republicans don't have enough votes in the Senate.
That's because at least 20% are actually Democrats and will always side with the Dems when it comes to something this important. Funny because all his life Trump was a Democrat. The difference is that he's stuck in the 60's version of what a Democrat used to be rather than the current Marxist version. I blame the entire situation with the state of the Democrat party on Trump:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: Once the Dems caught TDS and decided they could NEVER, EVER be on the same side of any issue as the evil orange man, that was when they actually started going looney tunes. Trump's for saving babies, we have to be for killing them. Trump is for legal immigration. We have to actively import criminals, and on and on and on.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom