Ketanji Brown Jackson will be sworn in Thursday at noon as the 116th Supreme Court justice and the first Black woman to serve on the high court.

...

"It has taken 232 years and 115 prior appointments for a Black woman to be selected to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States, but we've made it! We've made it — all of us," Jackson said in remarks at a White House event the day after the Senate vote.

...

Jackson, 51, has been confirmed since April, when the Senate voted 53 to 47 on her nomination. It was expected she would replace 83-year-old Justice Stephen Breyer — whom she clerked for after she'd graduated from Harvard Law School in 1996 — when he stepped down. His retirement will be effective Thursday.

 

(more)

 

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1108714345/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court-oath-swearing-in

 

 

 

 A welcome return to appointing Justices who are qualified for the post.

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 A welcome return to appointing Justices who are qualified for the post.

"A welcome return..."

   You're joking, of course.

When in American history were Supreme Court nominations anything other than crass attempts at pushing forward some faction's political or social agenda?

   In this case affirmative action.

 

1 minute ago, VillageIdiot said:

"A welcome return..."

   You're joking, of course.

When in American history were Supreme Court nominations anything other than crass attempts at pushing forward some faction's political or social agenda?

   In this case affirmative action.

 

Anything is better than Trumps Ultra Right Wing conservatives.

 

Religious zealots on the Supreme Court are like the Taliban extremist in Afghanistan. 

15 minutes ago, VillageIdiot said:

"A welcome return..."

   You're joking, of course.

When in American history were Supreme Court nominations anything other than crass attempts at pushing forward some faction's political or social agenda?

   In this case affirmative action.

 

Racist much?

38 minutes ago, VillageIdiot said:

"A welcome return..."

   You're joking, of course.

When in American history were Supreme Court nominations anything other than crass attempts at pushing forward some faction's political or social agenda?

   In this case affirmative action.

 

Hogwash.

 

Ketanji Brown Jackson is eminently qualified:

 

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

Your accusation of ‘affirmative action’ says absolutely nothing about Brown Jackson but a great deal about you.

I am not sure the headline is accurate. Justice Brown cannot actually say what a "woman" is, so by simple logic you cannot say that she is one. Indeed, calling her one may be a micro-aggression.  You need to be careful these days not to make such assumptions. 

14 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I am not sure the headline is accurate. Justice Brown cannot actually say what a "woman" is, so by simple logic you cannot say that she is one. Indeed, calling her one may be a micro-aggression.  You need to be careful these days not to make such assumptions. 

In legal matters, it does need to be precise, as opposed to forums and such. Bill C was correct (in a lawyerly sense) when he said "it depends on what your definition of 'is' is".

20 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I am not sure the headline is accurate. Justice Brown cannot actually say what a "woman" is, so by simple logic you cannot say that she is one. Indeed, calling her one may be a micro-aggression.  You need to be careful these days not to make such assumptions. 

I can say it and so can you.

The mistake Biden made was in proclaiming that possession of black skin and a uterus were deciding factors in choosing a Justice.  That automatically eliminated 93% of the US population from the competition.  He should have kept it to himself and then just 'happen to' pick a black woman. But he wanted to make virtue signalling points with his leftist base, plus placate blacks who were wavering in supporting him, so politics overrode common sense.

37 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

I am not sure the headline is accurate. Justice Brown cannot actually say what a "woman" is, so by simple logic you cannot say that she is one. Indeed, calling her one may be a micro-aggression.  You need to be careful these days not to make such assumptions. 

Stick with ‘Justice Brown Jackson’, we’ll all know who you are referring to.

41 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

The mistake Biden made was in proclaiming that possession of black skin and a uterus were deciding factors in choosing a Justice.  That automatically eliminated 93% of the US population from the competition.  He should have kept it to himself and then just 'happen to' pick a black woman. But he wanted to make virtue signalling points with his leftist base, plus placate blacks who were wavering in supporting him, so politics overrode common sense.

Ahh, poor you. A white man wasn’t chosen. Has that upset your philosophies …?

41 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

The mistake Biden made was in proclaiming that possession of black skin and a uterus were deciding factors in choosing a Justice.  That automatically eliminated 93% of the US population from the competition.  He should have kept it to himself and then just 'happen to' pick a black woman. But he wanted to make virtue signalling points with his leftist base, plus placate blacks who were wavering in supporting him, so politics overrode common sense.

He wasn’t ’virtue signaling’ he was ‘campaigning’.

 

It worked, he won the election and appointed a highly qualified Justice who has spent her career representing ordinary people, she’s not some ‘corporate puppet’.

 

A great pick.

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Ahh, poor you. A white man wasn’t chosen. Has that upset your philosophies …?

 Of course not. There have been many "not white men" chosen for the court. Doesn't bother me one way or another. My point was that it shouldn't be a factor either way for the President too.  And IF it is a factor for him, that demonstrates a character flaw that needs to be addressed.

10 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Don't be a dick.   Of course not. There have been many "not white men" chosen for the court. Doesn't bother me one way or another. My point was that it shouldn't be a factor either way for the President too.  And IF it is a factor for him, that demonstrates a character flaw that needs to be addressed.

Oh dear you open with a personal insult…my oh my a raw nerve touched. 
 

For someone who isn’t bothered you do seem to be focused upon one aspect of the newly appointed judge. 
 

Tell me did you post in a similar manner on that same aspect with trumps appointments?

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

He wasn’t ’virtue signaling’ he was ‘campaigning’.

 

It worked, he won the election and appointed a highly qualified Justice who has spent her career representing ordinary people, she’s not some ‘corporate puppet’.

 

A great pick.

Campaigning or patronizing?

 

I checked the Justice's record. She is the daughter of a lawyer, from a well off family, yet another member of the Harvard clique that holds inordinate sway on the Court. I didn't see too much time representing "ordinary people" in her career, she has been working for the government almost exclusively. I could see about 4 years in private practice, mainly working for huge legal firms with 1,000 plus lawyers in them.  

 

One point in her favour, at least she isn't Catholic. 

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Oh dear you open with a personal insult…my oh my a raw nerve touched. 
 

For someone who isn’t bothered you do seem to be focused upon one aspect of the newly appointed judge. 
 

Tell me did you post in a similar manner on that same aspect with trumps appointments?

Actually, you may find we agree more than disagree. I would like to see some actual diversity on the Court. Too many folks from Harvard/Yale, too many from one particular religion... Chromosones or pigmentation don't matter whatsoever except in a shallow and irrelevant way. There are already black people on the court, and women on the court, what is magical about the combination of the two?

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Actually, you may find we agree more than disagree. I would like to see some actual diversity on the Court. Too many folks from Harvard/Yale, too many from one particular religion... Chromosones or pigmentation don't matter whatsoever except in a shallow and irrelevant way. There are already black people on the court, and women on the court, what is magical about the combination of the two?

You want diversity. Well no worries, the new Supreme Court appointment represents that very thing. 

Just now, Bluespunk said:

You want diversity. Well no worries, the new Supreme Court appointment represents that very thing. 

Really? 8 of the current judges are Harvard/Yale alumni. Where is the diversity?

How many are left handed?  That bears about as much relevance as skin colour or sex.  

 

You know, the problem is that she is in a no-win situation. She may very well turn out to do a great job and be an outstanding Justice. But, thanks to Biden, she will always be seen as having been picked for her innate and irrelevant qualities rather than her expertise. It is tokenism at its most craven. 

5 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Really? 8 of the current judges are Harvard/Yale alumni. Where is the diversity?

How many are left handed?  That bears about as much relevance as skin colour or sex.  

 

You know, the problem is that she is in a no-win situation. She may very well turn out to do a great job and be an outstanding Justice. But, thanks to Biden, she will always be seen as having been picked for her innate and irrelevant qualities rather than her expertise. It is tokenism at its most craven. 

17 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Actually, you may find we agree more than disagree. I would like to see some actual diversity on the Court. Too many folks from Harvard/Yale, too many from one particular religion... Chromosones or pigmentation don't matter whatsoever except in a shallow and irrelevant way. There are already black people on the court, and women on the court, what is magical about the combination of the two?

Too many people from the US top law schools?

15 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Not sure your meaning here.  The only one who is an exception to the rule is Justice Barrett.  The rest, both liberal and conservative, are ALL part of the Yalevard cabal.  

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Too many people from the US top law schools?

Nope, too many from the SAME law schools. 

4 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Nope, too many from the SAME law schools. 

The ones that select the brightest applicants:

 

https://www.velocitylsat.com/resources/top-law-schools

 

I note you’ve flipped on candidates being selected on ability.

10 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

Not sure your meaning here.  The only one who is an exception to the rule is Justice Barrett.  The rest, both liberal and conservative, are ALL part of the Yalevard cabal.  

I think my meaning is very clear, in particular with reference to my responses to your earlier posts…though your objections to the new appointment appears to have shifted somewhat. 

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

The ones that select the brightest applicants:

 

https://www.velocitylsat.c

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The ones that select the brightest applicants:

 

https://www.velocitylsat.com/resources/top-law-schools

 

I note you’ve flipped on candidates being selected on ability.

om/resources/top-law-schools

 

I note you’ve flipped on candidates being selected on ability.

Depends on the website you read. I have seen Harvard ranked as low as 5th, behind Stanford, Columbia, and U of Chicago.  I do worry that religion and academic pedigree are factors that limit the Court to a far greater extent than race or sex.

 

Not sure what you mean about flipping on ability. Care to explain? 

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I think my meaning is very clear, in particular with reference to my responses to your earlier posts…though your objections to the new appointment appears to have shifted somewhat. 

My objections are mainly to Biden's hamhanded approach to the situation. Using the presence or absence of a uterus and extra melanin as being meaningful qualifications to such an important position is remarkably bigoted, even for an old school racist like Joe Biden. 

1 minute ago, Hanaguma said:

Depends on the website you read. I have seen Harvard ranked as low as 5th, behind Stanford, Columbia, and U of Chicago.  I do worry that religion and academic pedigree are factors that limit the Court to a far greater extent than race or sex.

 

Not sure what you mean about flipping on ability. Care to explain? 

Earlier you made the accusation of selection on the basis of ‘affirmative action’.

 

Now you object to the predominance of candidates being selected who attended the two top law schools in the US.

 

Entry to these law schools is extremely competitive, not so many other law schools.

 

Perhaps you would like to see ‘affirmative action’ in favor of less academically gifted applicants.

2 minutes ago, Hanaguma said:

My objections are mainly to Biden's hamhanded approach to the situation. Using the presence or absence of a uterus and extra melanin as being meaningful qualifications to such an important position is remarkably bigoted, even for an old school racist like Joe Biden. 

Again, it was a campaign strategy that worked, delivering both an election victory and a superbly qualified SC Justice.