Let’s revisit the Board’s conversation when Biden nominated Justice Brown Jackson.
Many were critical of Biden’s decision to appoint a woman of color, excluding consideration of other federal judges who might be more qualified.
Many rejected the notion that a federal judge could be both a deliberate “diversity” choice + highly qualified. KBJ was highly qualified and has distinguished herself as a Justice since her confirmation.
The United States Supreme Court’s website provides a bio for each Justice:
[Ketanji Brown Jackson, Associate Justice,
was born in Washington, D.C., on September 14, 1970. She married Patrick Jackson in 1996, and they have two daughters. She received an A.B., magna cum laude, from Harvard-Radcliffe College in 1992, and a J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 1996. She served as a law clerk for Judge Patti B. Saris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts from 1996 to 1997, Judge Bruce M. Selya of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit from 1997 to 1998, and Justice Stephen G. Breyer of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1999 Term. After three years in private practice, she worked as an attorney at the U.S. Sentencing Commission from 2003 to 2005. From 2005 to 2007, she served as an assistant federal public defender in Washington, D.C., and from 2007 to 2010, she was in private practice. She served as a Vice Chair and Commissioner on the U.S. Sentencing Commission from 2010 to 2014. In 2012, President Barack Obama nominated her to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, where she served from 2013 to 2021. She was appointed to the Defender Services Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States in 2017, and the Supreme Court Fellows Commission in 2019. President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., appointed her to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2021 and then nominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 2022. She took her seat on June 30, 2022.]
Putting aside the racist perspectives of many posters, there were some posters — Baron, Ned — who are not racists, who asserted that a Supreme Court seat requires the best available judge, regardless of color or gender. [At the time, I argued that KBJ fit that bill, and have been proven correct]
My challenge in this thread is to apply the same “best and brightest” standard to Trump’s choice for Secretary of Defense. Can the same posters who claimed that Justice Brown Jackson was a substandard “check the diversity box” choice, now claim that Pete Hegseth was the best choice for Secretary of Defense?
Replies to: Let’s revisit the Board’s conversation when Biden nominated Justice Brown Jackson.
She was a pre announced DEI hire. JB: I'Il pick a black woman" (someone based on race and gender)
And she has proven to be an idiot as expected and as predicted from her resume.
This can’t be disputed. But they will try
(no message)
She became unqualified the minute she said she didn't know what a woman was
(no message)
For those with Gender Dysphoria it's a genuine question...as noted many times here,
studies indicate the possibilities of genetic and biological abnormalities that make it impossible for such people to view themselves as 'Cisgender'. Some people don't care about the distress those fellow human beings are under, while others seek to help them have better lives...no shame in that.
She did not know the definition of woman.
Nutcase.
She is a dip shit just like Kamala.
(no message)
She is a dip shit just like Kamala.
(no message)
Your "best and brightest" doesn't make sense. Who is your "best & brightest" for Secretary of DoD?
You never named one who is the best and brightest for next secretary of DoD.
You don't have a choice you think is the best and brightest. So, to me " the best and brightest" is just your excuse that you don't like Trump's pick. I understand you don't like Trump's pick, just like I don't like Biden's pick and Trump's pick in his term. But thats part of consequences of the election. That's it. It is not a serious topic to debate unless you're still whining about election.
You have not been proven correct.
If the assertion is "a Supreme Court seat requires the best available judge" you can't point to her bio and act like that answers the question. You would have to do what should have been done in the first place, which is vet everyone and their accomplishments available at the time she was nominated and see if she was actually the best available judge. I know you didn't do that.
I don't give a crap what color a person is, but I would like to look at everyone who is interested in the job and pick the best person. That's how I have always done hiring, I would imagine you have as well at some point.
There was a great video where a very well qualified girl on a university campus nearly broke down when being interviewed because she thought she only got in because of DEI. Wouldn't it have been nice for the first black female supreme court judge to have been selected because she actually beat out everyone who was up against her instead of just all the other black female judges? If you thought she was, then you should have supported her going against everyone, not being selected by default.
I know that both sides like to pick judges that they believe will "support" their policy views, which invariably means that "everyone" is not actually looked at, but the point stands that there were other liberal judges that were never even considered because of Biden's choice to only look at black women. Trying to say you were proven correct when there is literally no way to know is just silly.
Janice Rogers Brown, fmr Chief Justice Calif Supreme Court; oh wait, she is black, but not a lefty.
(no message)
here's the picture you should have emblazoned in your memory relative to biden's staff:
you have absolutely zero basis for disagreeing with any trump cabinet nomination.
What the hell is that? The suitcase bandit.
(no message)
"He's old we get it" That should suffice, right?
(no message)
If Trump declared that he was going to appoint a white man to SecDef, your reaction would be?
(no message)
conor is racist.
(no message)
Is he qualified? And he is clearly not, reflected in the narrowest vote in US history.
(no message)
the fact that trump nominated him is insufficient to disqualify. he's an excellent choice.
as a career military man, i wholeheartedly support this choice. your blindly and thoughtlessly following the party lemming line is typical of someone who focuses on metadata and not on substance.
despite your blatant disregard for good judgement and common sense, you will also reap the rewards of the trump administration.
but you will complain long and bitterly anyway.
it is what you all do.
Thanks to the dems questions in the hearing, all I really know about him is he's polyamorous.
And likes to have a good time.
Who cares? It was legal. Deal with it.
(no message)
You didn't answer the question.
(no message)
My reaction, like everyone else, would be “duh.”
And yes cheeks, it is always a controversy when a white man is appointed to a post by a White Republican President. Hardly ever happens, right?
You're a racist.
(no message)
It’s legal. Look it up.
(no message)
Why?
(no message)
Hensou’s and Tampa’s surrenders are noted.
(no message)
Your surrender comment is childish. I just accepted the proceedings.
You continue to whine about everything that you can’t change.
It’s done.
Your side lost. There is a new sheriff in town and DEI is going away.
Deal with it.
💯
(no message)
Agree. It’s done. No amount of blubberous reflection can change that.
(no message)
DEI hiring is going away. Conor is holding onto the past.
(no message)
I'm sure you were mouthy AF about KBJ, but we see you and hypothetical brethren.
(no message)