Supreme Court pick Ketanji Brown Jackson .

a reply to: Salander

I'd say they're pretty irrelevant. First off, it's just a test to measure a person's logic and reasoning. It doesn't actually have anything to do with legal knowledge. They're about as relevant as asking to see how she did on 3rd grade word problems.

Second, the only people that care about them are the admissions department for law schools. Once you get into law school, your class rank is not dependent on your LSAT scores, your LSAT scores have no bearing on your ability to pass the Bar, and no law firm is going to ask what you got on the LSAT when you apply. The things that law firms actually care about are how prestigious the school is you graduated from, your class rank, and that you're actually, legally, able to practice law.

Since the founding of this country, there have been 120 Supreme Court justices. We have seen the LSAT scores for zero of them. So why are LSAT scores suddenly important when the nominee is a black woman?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

No need to see any of Ketanji Jackson's test scores.

Not knowing what a Woman is, completely disqualifies her.

Too many Supreme Court cases take "gender" into consideration.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Why was the drinking habits, which days of the week he drank, of Kavanaugh relevant in his hearing?

I would say LSAT scores are much more relevant than the drinking habits of any nominee.

Otherwise, your post seems specious. At the very least not persuasive. As so many others have noted, how can a candidate be seen as credible when she cannot define a woman?

Even for the perpetual Clown Show that is Washington DC, this nominee is a very poor choice. It amounts to a weird sort of affirmative action, nothing more. She is not qualified.

a reply to: Salander

She is going to be appointed by the deep state to pursue another agenda now within the supreme court of the US.

To keep people from realizing this agenda, she is prop on academics to hide the personal views.

She is a product of the deep state.

a reply to: carewemust

Too many Supreme Court cases take "gender" into consideration.

Thank you for unintentionally illustrating why Jackson's answer was in fact the best answer to the question.

In sociology, gender is a social construct that operates on a spectrum of masculinity and femininity. In biology, gender is generally considered a synonym to sex, meaning it is defined by a person's sex organs. But even that is a basic overgeneralization. It is possible for someone to genetically be male but phenotypically appear female. Does that make them a woman?

Then it gets even more complicated when you bring in the different schools of biology. For example, in neuroscience, if a person's brain has developed to be more in line with a female brain than a male brain despite having male sex organs, is it the court's place to tell that person they're not a woman despite having a brain that causes them to experience life like a woman?

At the end of the day, it is not a judge's place to define terms. They simply interpret the existing law after hearing arguments as to why one interpretation is better than another. It is the job of the lawyers to define the terms and then define why their definition is the correct one.

So, it seems to me that Jackson is a good judge for not going into the courtroom without preconceived definitions for topics as complex as gender and instead letting the lawyers argue their case.

If she was nominated by illegitimate Joe Biden then she should not be seated.

a reply to: Salander

I would say a judge's sobriety is much more relevant than the score a judge but on a test decades ago that hasn't had any bearing in their life since getting admitted to law school.

That said, a lot of what Kavanaugh went through was unnecessary and was merely done as payback for McConnell refusing to even allow Obama to nominate a new justice.

a reply to: marg6043

I think you are exactly right. She is an advocate of the CRT and other such nonsense, and the Deep State (for lack of a better term) wants her on the court.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: LSU2018

They were looking for gotcha moments. Hawley confirmed Trump conservative judges that gave the same kinds of sentences. Cruz has kids at a private school and a quick look at the suggested reading list shows books like,
Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong and The Privilege of Being Poor and other books that he would screech about if it wasn't his kids school such as he did about this lady and her school.

Even Sasse said there was "jackassery" for the cameras. She has to take her time because she keeps having to explain that she can't just give a criminal the max time because she wants to. There are procedures, guidelines and information from other departments she must follow. If they do not understand the first time, I guess you have to start explaining it like the person may have some impairment not allowing them to understand.

Yeah, it might have been easier to fabricate a story about a guy she sexually assaulted 30 years prior, but republicans went the route of asking legit questions.

a reply to: LSU2018
Great point!
They want to forget about all that tho.
That entire event was a dastardly display by the democrats.
Interesting to hear them whine now.

a reply to: Salander

She seems to be pro gender neutrality and the Pedophile agenda, I posted that a few pages back.

The deep state wants to change the face of traditional supreme court judges and this will ensure that the interpretation of constitutional rule change also and more proactivity toward a make over of constitutional rights.

We will be entering a dangerous times ahead.

a reply to: Salander

And please tell me how she advocates for CRT? Also is she then stating that her husband and half white children are oppressors and racists? He was crying, the daughters are photographed looking at her with such pride. But she's oppressed by them? I mean you can't advocate for CRT and be living with your racist oppressors right?

And psst, Cruz sends his kids to a private school similar to the one she's on the board of. They have questionable material too. Feel free to browse their reading list and search the library. Who's more of an advocate for CRT? A woman on the board or a man who chose to send his children to such a place?

It's moot anyway, a couple of Republican senators have stated they will vote her in. She has enough.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

To be clear, I am no fan of Kavanaugh.

You're on a slippery slope there, suggesting that drinking alcohol while off duty somehow impairs one's legal reasoning abilities when sitting on the court. While at the same time suggesting that a nominee's legal skills as shown by LSAT is somehow irrelevant.

From what I've seen, that woman, no matter the color of her skin, is not fit to sit on the court. She represents the weird philosophy that has taken over so much of the federal government.

There are plenty of other worthy candidates for the position.

a reply to: frogs453

I've never met the woman. Given her expressed political philosophies, and her actions as a judge, it is a very safe bet that she does support CRT and all the other craziness that we see appearing today.

What is very clear is that she is a very poor candidate for the position. Extremely poor.

a reply to: Salander

Ok, please what philosophy did she express. Please in her words, what has she said?

And ok, she supports CRT yet married an inherently racist oppressor.. smdh. How that makes sense in your mind I truly don't know. And I mean all the anti CRT are the ones insisting it's teaching that, so that is your belief.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: LSU2018
Great point!
They want to forget about all that tho.
That entire event was a dastardly display by the democrats.
Interesting to hear them whine now.

Kav was asked legit questions by the republicans and scorned by the left. Katana is asked legit questions by the republicans and more or less taken on a first date by the left. By the time they were done, they knew her favorite color, song, class, number, sign, perfume, etc.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Then why do people seem to answer correctly when asked gender on a form ???? 🤣

a reply to: LSU2018
The fact that it was stated a person of specific gender and skin color would be chosen, and one was, is completely disgusting and against all federal anti discrimination laws we have.

Rules for thee and not for me!

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: Salander

Ok, please what philosophy did she express. Please in her words, what has she said?

And ok, she supports CRT yet married an inherently racist oppressor.. smdh. How that makes sense in your mind I truly don't know. And I mean all the anti CRT are the ones insisting it's teaching that, so that is your belief.

That's her cover-up so that people like you can say "She's married to a white, how on Earth could she support CRT?"

I mean, that's the precedent her party set when they questioned Barrett. The problem they had was because Barrett adopted several black homeless kids.

a reply to: xuenchen

See, here's the thing. She is far from dumb, she knew exactly how Marsha wanted to twist whatever answer she gave. If Marsha was a bit brighter ( which yesterday she was tweeting but apparently did not know the difference between the constitution and Declaration of Independence) she may have been able to phrase that and get an answer. Either way, Jackson stated any issue that arose in court would have both arguments and the law that applies when making a decision. Seems like the appropriate approach for a judge.