If confirmed, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will be the first …. What?
Black woman? I really don’t care that much. It’s not the sort of diversity that matters to me.
But there is this. She will be the only justice on the court who has experience as a public defender, and that’s a good thing. It will balance out the justices who were prosecutors.
I have no doubt that I would disagree with Judge Jackson on a lot of issues, but this is the kind of diversity I like to see on the court. Different opinions about things that matter. Different legal backgrounds.
Unfortunately, she’s yet another Harvard grad, so there’s not much diversity there.
You don’t want her LSAT score? Why stop there… why not SAT and ACT scores?
Makes Tucker look like a dunce and maybe a tad bit racist. Did he ask for LSAT scores for any other nominee man, woman, Dem or Repug?
When you interview someone with 10,20,30 years experience, do you ever ask them what their ACT or SAT scores were? Hell, with that experience, usually you don’t even ask what their grades were in school let alone entrance scores. Would you ask your doctor what their MCAT scores were? You certainly might wonder how well they scored while in school. If you’re getting surgery, you want to know how many times they had performed the surgery and the success rate.
The “everything is racist” line jumped the shark about 10 years ago.
In terms of success rate, I’ve heard Judge Jackson has been overturned quite often.
Tucker’s point, I would imagine, is that if you say you’re only going to nominate someone from a particular (and I think small) part of the population of candidates, and also say she’s a once in a generation legal talent, it’s not unreasonable to ask for evidence.
Also, if we were to compare what standards are applied — by the left and the right — to every SCOTUS nomination, I’m sure we’d find that each of them ask for different and contradictory things each time.
QUOTE: if you say you’re only going to nominate someone from a particular (and I think small) part of the population of candidates, and also say she’s a once in a generation legal talent, it’s not unreasonable to ask for evidence.
So if someone is nominated from a larger part of the population of candidates, it’s reasonable to not ask for evidence of their legal prowess? Should only those who are from a particular (and small) part of the population of candidates have to provide such evidence?
You’d think if someone wanted to know the LSAT scores of a candidate, it would have been for Judge “Kegger/ILUVBEER”.
But, maybe not. He’s our kind of people.
I would thought the same given some of Judge Kavanaugh’s commentary during confirmation hearings. Yet, it didn’t seem to be an issue.
Interestingly, Judge Amy Coney Barrett was unable to name all of the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment during her Supreme Court confirmation hearing. The five freedoms are usually among the first lessons taught in US civics classes. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security recommends those applying for U.S. citizenship to study the five freedoms in order to pass a citizenship test for naturalization. Yet, Judge Barrett was given a pass for not knowing something quite basic in the legal profession.
So, now nominee Judge Jackson comes along (from a particular and small part of the population of candidates) and LSAT scores and the ability to provide evidence of legal talent is a factor? Interesting.
QUOTE: You don’t want her LSAT score? Why stop there… why not SAT and ACT scores? Makes Tucker look like a dunce and maybe a tad bit racist. Did he ask for LSAT scores for any other nominee man, woman, Dem or Repug?
Has Tucker ever asked what other SCOTUS nominee’s LSAT scores were, or did he assume they were qualified for the job? Mitch McConnell issued a statement upon Judge Jackson’s nomination: “The Senate must conduct a rigorous, exhaustive review of Judge Jackson’s nomination as befits a lifetime appointment to our highest Court…I look forward to carefully reviewing Judge Jackson’s nomination during the vigorous and thorough Senate process that the American people deserve.” Judge Barrett was confirmed by the Senate 30 days after being nominated by President Trump. I guess the American people didn’t deserve an exhaustive review with her. Before Trump nominated her to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017, Judge Barrett had never been a judge, an attorney general or even a defense lawyer. Five years later, she’s on the Supreme Court. Most recently, she’s been named a “Hero of Liberty”. Imagine that from a SCOTUS nominee that couldn’t name the five freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment during her confirmation hearing? What would Tucker say if Judge Jackson had a similar level of legal experience as Judge Barrett and couldn’t fully answer a basic legal question?
Most likely, Tucker Carlson is just trying to divert attention with new crazy things in order to make us forget about his Pro-Putin stance just prior to the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Just give him another week and he will spew forth some other insanity, as a court of law has given him a free hand with his non-literal commentary.
Indeed, I thought of that too. With Tucker we must always keep in mind…
Fox News Defense Lawyer: “The ‘general tenor’ of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary.’ “
District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil:“Whether the Court frames Mr. Carlson’s statements as ‘exaggeration,’ ‘non-literal commentary,’ or simply bloviating for his audience, the conclusion remains the same — the statements are not actionable.”
QUOTE: Black woman? I really don’t care that much. It’s not the sort of diversity that matters to me…I have no doubt that I would disagree with Judge Jackson on a lot of issues, but this is the kind of diversity I like to see on the court.
Albeit you don’t care about some forms of diversity, do you think it’s legitimate for the Court to pursue various diversity forms because other US citizens find value in those?
Interesting question.
Right now, from what I’ve heard, the majority of Americans want us to defend Ukraine. I think that would be incredibly stupid. So while we have a representative form of government, I don’t believe that means we should always follow what people want.
Also, I think support for “diversity” is paper thin. People say it because they’ll be called racist if they don’t.
Should we try to have more diversity on the court? Absolutely. But I would not rank race and sex as the top characteristics. They’d be on the list, but below things like “from other law schools,” “holding to different legal theories,” “from a poor background,” “has business experience,” etc.
QUOTE: Should we try to have more diversity on the court? Absolutely. But I would not rank race and sex as the top characteristics. They’d be on the list, but below things like “from other law schools,” “holding to different legal theories,” “from a poor background,” “has business experience,” etc.
So, if you don’t believe we should always follow what people want, why should priority be given to diversity elements you (and those who agree with you) find more valuable (e.g., other law schools, different legal theories, poor background, business experience)? Are race and sex inherently less valuable than other diversity elements? If so, why? Who gets to decide and on what basis which diversity elements take priority…if any?
Because I’m right is the obvious answer. 🙂
We don’t have direct democracy. We elect people to make decisions. Those people should decide what’s best for the country, not by taking polls, but by being thoughtful and deliberative.
In this case, the Senate gets to decide what factors prevail. The Senate used to be called “the world’s greatest deliberative body.” That’s a joke now, of course, but they should return to that tradition and examine what types of “diversity” are most appropriate for the court.
To my mind, making it about skin color is so clearly wrong that anybody with a functioning brain should see that.
So, are you saying that if the Senate, “the world’s greatest deliberative body”, agrees that race and sex are as valuable as other diversity elements that you’d accept that?
That said, given we don’t have a direct democracy (anyone with a functioning brain should know that) and we shouldn’t always follow what people want…I’m still curious as to why you feel priority should be given to diversity elements you (and those who agree with you) find more valuable?
QUOTE: Also, I think support for “diversity” is paper thin. People say it because they’ll be called racist if they don’t.
How do you know this is accurate? What do you base this view upon? Below are some findings from recent research concerning attitudes towards diversity in the US…
*Three-quarters of Americans say it is very (49%) or somewhat (26%) important for companies and organizations to promote racial and ethnic diversity in their workplace.
*More than six-in-ten Americans (64%) say the fact that the U.S. population is made up of people of many different races and ethnicities has a positive impact on the country’s culture; 12% say it has a negative impact and 23% say it doesn’t make much difference. Hispanics (70%) are more likely than whites (64%) and blacks (58%) to say the country’s racial and ethnic diversity has a positive impact on the country’s culture.
* A majority of Americans (57%) say the fact that the U.S. population is made up of people of many different races and ethnicities is a very good thing for the country, and another 20% say this is somewhat good. Small shares say this is somewhat (5%) or very (1%) bad, while 17% say it is neither good nor bad for the country. Similar shares of whites (55%), blacks (59%) and Hispanics (60%) say racial and ethnic diversity is very good for the country.
*Most Americans (70%) say they would not be particularly bothered if they heard people speak a language other than English in a public place, including 47% who say they would not be bothered at all.