Supreme Court pick Ketanji Brown Jackson .

a reply to: Xcalibur254

We can't. He never released his list during the campaign and still has not.

www.cbsnews.com...

The only other 2 we know are

Leondra Kruger - Pretty impressive. 12 cases in front of the SCOTUS also.

Jackson did attend Harvard Law School and has expertise that would bring considerable professional diversity to the high court. She worked as a public defender and served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission before she was nominated to the federal bench by former President Barack Obama. She is the favorite of progressives.

Kruger, 45, has been on the California Supreme Court since 2015. She was just 38 when chosen for the job by then-Gov. Jerry Brown. She’s seen as a moderate on the seven-member court. She used to work for the Department of Justice.

J Michele Childs -

The 55-year-old is a federal judge in South Carolina who has been nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That nomination is on hold while she’s under consideration for the high court.

Childs lacks the elite law school credentials of many current Supreme Court justices — she attended the University of South Carolina School of Law. But that’s part of her appeal to Clyburn and others who question why Ivy League credentials are necessary. Eight of the court’s nine current members attended law school at Harvard or Yale. Childs also has a master’s degree from the school as well as a different legal degree from Duke.

Among the three justices on Biden’s short list, Childs is considered the most moderate, and she has been criticized by progressives and labor groups who say her record is not sufficiently supportive of worker rights. She was previously a state court judge and has served as a federal trial court judge since 2010.

Another candidate but you want to know why she was not called up? Because she promised Jacksons seat.

Amazing huh?

a reply to: matafuchs

Looking over their resumes, Jackson is the more impressive candidate. Once again, she has held a federal judgeship for nine years and before that had a respectable legal career. Not to mention her time spent on the sentencing commission.

a reply to: matafuchs

Another candidate but you want to know why she was not called up? Because she is going after Browns seat.

Amazing huh?

By the way, what do you mean by this? Appellate judgeships are lifelong appointments. Also, as far as I'm aware there's no limit on how many judges that can be appointed to the Appeals court.

So if you're trying to claim that Childs was passed over because she was trying to unseat Jackson, then you're completely wrong.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Sorry I fixed my post. I think the SCOTUS was approached last year. I just find it coincidence that Childs was going to be appointed on the DC Appellate where Jackson is.

Well, since Justice Thomas seems to be having some issues with his wife's activities and is now in the hospital for over a week instead of the 2 days they stated he would be there, perhaps when he does recover, he will be retiring and Childs will get her chance.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody

Not looking at 80%of the population because of skin color or gender is disgusting.
You who are supporting this are racist.

Assuming that there was no black woman as equally as qualified as Brett Kavanaugh is discrimination.
Assuming that there was no black woman as equally as qualified as Niel Gorsuch is discrimination.
Assuming that there was no black woman as equally as qualified as Amy Comey Barrett is discrimination.

Yeah
Too bad trump wasn't stupid enough to voice his requirements BEFORE making the choice.
I can't believe all the racist support this is getting.

Choosing by race is racist!!!!

a reply to: shooterbrody

Too bad trump wasn't stupid enough to voice his requirements BEFORE making the choice.

Oh, but he did! He promised to nominate a (white) woman to take RGB"s seat. He also promised that he he would only appoint (white) justices that would overturn Roe V Wade.

There goes a large percentage of qualified candidates, right there.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody

Too bad trump wasn't stupid enough to voice his requirements BEFORE making the choice.

Oh, but he did! He promised to nominate a woman to take RGB"s seat. He also promised that he he would only appoint justices that would overturn Roe V Wade.

Mr biden is a racist.
Those who support this OPENLY support racism.

You have become EXACTLY what mr king warned you about.

You judge on skin color, not the content of their character.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I think that there are plenty of people of colored that are as equally as qualified as all the white people Trump appointed.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody

I think that there are plenty of people of colored that are as equally as qualified as all the white people Trump appointed.

Sure
Trump never made a promise "to only nominate a black".

Mr racist biden did.
Disgusting racists!

You know what...I forgot you were fooled by jucy smollyay, nevermind you clearly won't be able to work this out.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Please answer these questions.

1) What is a woman?
2) When does life begin?
3) When does a person enjoy full equal protection under the law?

Nobody can factually answer those questions without inserting their opinion.

Wrong. The problem is not that questions cannot be answered. The problem is the questions you just asked are undefined in what they are seeking, therefore any answer is up to the interpretation of the reader. A proper question seeks a specific resolution.

Example: What is a woman? Irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. What is female? That is a proper question that has an answer. The answer is a person bearing two X chromosomes in the cell nuclei. Simple.

When does life begin? Irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. What life are you referring to? When is a cell alive? When does a collection of cells become a human being? Define the question properly and it becomes answerable. At the moment of conception there are exactly two cells. Two cells is not a human being. Those two cells have the potential to become a human being at some point in the future. But that proves the point. You can not simultaneously be something and have potential to become the same thing. If you have potential to become human, you are not at that moment human.

When does a person enjoy full equal protection under the law? Always. A person does, not a collection of cells that has potential to become something it has not yet achieved.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

people of colored

Interesting.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: shooterbrody

I think that there are plenty of people of colored that are as equally as qualified as all the white people Trump appointed.

The difference is eliminating every potential candidate that is not a black female before considering any individual. If biden had said he considered all the candidates and selected a woman of color, no problem. But he didn't do that. He said he was limiting the pool of potential candidates to women of color. That is a blatant declaration of discrimination.

If we cant keep discrimination out of the highest court in the land, what can we say for the rest of the country?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I don't think it's a stretch to look for qualified candidates in "binders full or women" or in the Black female community to offset all the candidates from the white Christian male sector.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

A proper question seeks a specific resolution.

Proper or not, those are the questions she was asked, that she said she couldn't answer.


a reply to: JinMI

Just a typo. Not so interesting.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Please name those other judges that have better qualifications.

As I mentioned previously, Jackson has served more time on the bench than half the current judges did when they were confirmed, combined.

Considering to your opposition to Jackson, I'm guessing you must have be really opposed to Barrett. I mean she had been a judge for less than three years and didn't even know what the 1st Amendment entailed.

Can you please link me to some of your posts where you called out her qualifications?

So she has been a Judge for a long time that is your point ? Age and Experience are no guarantee of Wisdom nor Qualification .

It's her ability to serve as one of the Nine most powerful Judges in the land that is in Question .

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Hyperbolic much?

? you said it not me .

So, you're saying that you don't know if the decision to nix her was racial or not, but you're sure it was Democrat's hypocrisy?

It's called not playing the Race Card and no I don't know , so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt regardless of how obvious the hypocrisy maybe .

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Just a typo. Not so interesting.

Maybe, or maybe a Freudian slip.

Who knows.

a reply to: JinMI

Colored people, people of color...whatever. "People of colored" was a typo.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

He promised to nominate a (white) woman to take RGB"s seat. He also promised that he he would only appoint (white) justices that would overturn Roe V Wade.

Did he promise that ? I remember him promising a Woman yes but I must say I don't recall him saying " White " .

But he was a big racist meany who tweeted insensitive things so it must be true.