Hey...how come conservative whites never talk about the Radical Republicans or the States Rights Democratic Party or the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party?
Ketanji Brown Jackson’s past is an asset, not a liability.
In her February speech accepting President Biden’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson thanked family, friends, colleagues, law clerks, and mentors—but saved her last expression of gratitude for Constance Baker Motley.
A ground-breaking attorney born in 1921, Motley was the first Black woman in the United States to serve as a federal judge, and was a chief legal tactician of the civil rights movement. She helped litigate Brown v. Board of Education, one of the most important cases in American constitutional law; she desegregated schools and universities in the South; she represented Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in Birmingham; and she won nine of the 10 cases she argued before the Supreme Court.
“Today, I proudly stand on Judge Motley’s shoulders,” Jackson said in February, calling Motley’s life and career “a true inspiration to me as I have pursued this professional path.”
She added that not only did she share Motley’s “steadfast and courageous commitment to equal justice under law,” but a birthday too. The two women were born 49 years apart, to the day.
But the parallels run deeper still: Jackson, an eminently qualified jurist, was already facing mischaracterizations of her extensive courtroom experience. They began before she was nominated for the court, a repeat of what Motley endured more than five decades before.
By the 1960s, Motley had made an indelible and historic mark on American law. One of the cases she argued in front of the Supreme Court was Hamilton v. Alabama, a unanimous 1961 decision establishing the right of defendants in capital cases to assistance of counsel at arraignment.
But Motley was passed over for a seat on a federal appeals court because opponents of her nomination turned her greatest asset into a liability, recasting her work to fulfill the promise of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment as “bias.”
In their minds, Motley’s pathbreaking career as a civil rights lawyer—a Black lawyer at that—meant she could not be “fair” to all.
Fifty-six years later, critics of Judge Jackson’s historic nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court used the same tired playbook, seizing on Jackson’s two-year stint as a public defender to portray her as a pawn of the imagined “radical Left.”
"They were pretty awful to Marshall. Thurmond in particular kept asking questions that were like trivia questions. 'Tell us the names of the people on the committee that voted out the 14th Amendment," said Carolyn Shapiro, a professor at the Chicago-Kent School of Law who has studies Supreme Court nominations."
Got it...carmenjonze wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 8:35 pm Will you please stop declaring my death by these people? I'm already aware of their lethal attitudes.
Yes and then they turn tail immediately when caught.Libertas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 4:52 pm Interacting, sort of, with board con on a thread about racing, I see exactly what you all have had to deal with all this time.
If you read only what he said, you would have the exact opposite of the actual facts of the situation, and often people in general do NOT look up what a con says, they assume they arent lying, but they ALWAYS are. Not here, of course, here when a con speaks it is assumed they are lying and they are fact checked and they almost always are.
The context is that Graham is doing exactly what he says the Dems shouldn't do.Bludogdem wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 7:54 pm Graham vents Barrett faith grievances in Jackson questioning
“ Sen. Lindsey Graham opened his questioning on Tuesday of Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson by asking her about her faith, raising the issue in an effort to rehash what he said was the “offensive” treatment of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in past confirmation hearings.
Barrett, a practicing Catholic and appointee of President Donald Trump, faced questions at her 2020 Supreme Court confirmation hearing about how her faith might inform how she would rule from the bench. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said at a 2017 confirmation hearing for Barrett’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit that “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that is a concern,” one of several remarks that Barrett supporters criticized as anti-Catholic bigotry.”
“ “If you express your faith as a conservative, all of the sudden, you’re an ‘effing nut.’ And we’re tired of it,” Graham (R-S.C.) said, referring to a comment made by comedian Bill Maher in 2020. “And it’s not going to happen to you.”
“ Graham began his questioning by asking which faith Jackson practices. She is a nondenominational Protestant, she responded, to which Graham asked, “On a scale of one to 10, how faithful would you say you are, in terms of religion?”
Jackson expressed that her faith is important, but noted “there’s no religious test in the Constitution under Article VI.”
“There will be none with me,” Graham said, interrupting her.”
“ Graham expressed discontent with the way Barrett’s faith was weaponized as a potential hindrance during her 2020 confirmation hearings. He also spoke of Justice Samuel Alito and former D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown, suggesting that they were the subjects of unfair treatment by Democrats because of their conservative views.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/2 ... g-00019224
Context.
Nobody is supposed to be questioning karen at all.ProfX wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 6:13 am Nobody questioned ACB on her faith, not per se. There were no questions like "Could you serve on the Court as a Catholic?" (It's kind of a dumb question, as there are plenty of Catholics on it already.)
I do believe it was fair to ask her about her membership in People of Praise, just as I would anybody who, for example, belonged to Opus Dei. Membership in "para-church" organizations is not questioning someone's faith, or saying they are unqualified due to their religion. Graham was just show-boating over a nonsense point, equally as nonsensical as asking Ketanji about Afghan War or Gitmo detention policy.
As for Mike Braun's statement, suddenly came the walk back. "I meant something else". But that said, this exposes the problem in Braun's argument. "Abortion should be left to the states!" "Privacy/contraception should be left to the states!" (Since they are now also apparently attacking Griswold as well.) "Gay marriage should be left to the states!" (Obgerfell).
OK. So, yes, then why not also argue, based on the same (lack of) logic, that "inter-racial" marriage/"miscegenation law" should be left to the states also, and overturn Loving vs. Virginia as well? I mean, it does follow, if you want to continue this same idiotic train of thought. "States rights" was also used to defend segregation ... just because there is a federal system, where some powers are left to the states, does not mean people might live under 50 distinct dictatorships with no fundamental rights.
It is this SAME idiocy that leads some people to claim the various states can trample on a person's fundamental right to vote/franchise.
Hey how come it bothers conservative males so much that we don’t want serial sex harassers, repressed cult member breeder women who’ve never argued a court case in her disease-spreading life, and accused rapists on the SCOTUS?
It only shows how tightly their violent QAnon, antiabortion, anti-LGTBQ, and while Christian nationalist perversions are bound together. #Jan6gounion wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 5:13 am The context is that Graham is doing exactly what he says the Dems shouldn't do.
Your context is, it's fine when Republicans do it, right? Graham is a hypocrite, and so are you.
The GOP has made these hearings a political circus, with all the nutjobs making all kinds of crazy racist accusations.
I am now convinced that if Republicans had their way, only White Land Owning Males Over The Age of 21 would be allowed to vote.carmenjonze wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:07 am Hey how come it bothers conservative males so much that we don’t want serial sex harassers, repressed cult member breeder women who’ve never argued a court case in her disease-spreading life, and accused rapists on the SCOTUS?
Care to state why you’re always so defensive of these amoral reprobates?
Yes press them on the issue and they’ll eventually be honest about it. Including the duped conservative white women trying to please them, every bit as violent and ruthless. Such dirty people.marindem01 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 9:44 am I am now convinced that if Republicans had their way, only White Land Owning Males Over The Age of 21 would be allowed to vote.
Let's reviewcarmenjonze wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 1:35 am Yes and then they turn tail immediately when caught.
They are some of the most violent, amoral, unethical people on earth. It's like it's against their religion for them to use the brains they say God gave them. :problem:
Next to fellow under-educated confederate JoeMemphis, you are the most ignorant, uninformed person on this board.
Conservative males are either sexual/social perverts or sexual/social pervert enablers.
The source of the list is the same person who admits to lying and recently admitted to lying on his resume to get a manager's job at Eckerd's Drug Store.ProfX wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 8:00 pm The Confederacy was no longer part of the Union, so its leaders did not belong to any political parties in it, either.
You have a list of all the Republicans who spoke up against it. Right? (Conservative, Western, ... I'll take any ... )
I thought that was the U.S. Army, as ordered by Congress and its declaration of war, made by both parties.
I mean, honestly, this is a weird one on your list. But, that aside, do you know of a long list of Republicans saying then we shouldn't have dropped those bombs? At the time?
You have a weird way of assigning all of these things.
Yep.carmenjonze wrote: ↑Wed Mar 23, 2022 12:48 pm Conservative males are either sexual/social perverts or sexual/social pervert enablers.
It’s unfortunate because they could choose a better way for themselves but for whatever weird cultural reasons, they don’t.
It's republicans and so-called Christian religious leaders.
Still waiting waiting on even ONE name of a white con, Republican or otherwise, who spoke up against any of these things in this list.Glennfs wrote: ↑Tue Mar 22, 2022 6:19 pm It was the democratic party who went to war to save slavery
It was the democratic party that was in charge of the south during jim crow
It was the democratic party who locked citizens in concentration camps for being of Japanese Decent
It was the democratic party that dropped 2 nuclear bombs on the private citizens in Nagasaki and Hiroshima
It was the democratic party who elected KKK leader Byrd
It was a democratic party president who called Byrd his mentor
It was a democratic party president that stated Obama was clean
It was a democratic party president who believes integrated schools would turn his kids schools into a jungle
It was a democratic party president who told us the lie about Corn Pop
Finally it was a democratic party president who declared that poor children are just as smart as white children
Indeed. But it's kinda weird. If he's trying to prove the Democratic party is/was racist - ummm, what does the decision to drop the atomic bomb have to do with that (yes I know there has been a historical debate ever since whether it was necessary or driven by geopolitics, but still), or that Biden has a weird and folksy story about a dude in his childhood named Corn Pop, have to do with that? (Yes, it's a bizarre and odd story. But?)
