Biden nominates Ketanji Brown Jackson for SCOTUS

Fair point. I wonder what religion she is. It’s no secret that currently there are only Catholics and Jews on SCOTUS. Why no Protestants in a majority Protestant country?

Answering my own question, her religious background is unclear. She was on an advisory board for a conservative Christian school that affirmed traditional marriage, gender roles and rights of the unborn.

"7 things to know about Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson" https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...t-supreme-court-nominee-ketanji-brown-jackson

Mind = blown
 
Fair point. I wonder what religion she is. It’s no secret that currently there are only Catholics and Jews on SCOTUS. Why no Protestants in a majority Protestant country?

5ATEJBEGEYI7SRG77U3CEAIKCE.jpg


66045-istock-1008592778.jpg


view-of-saint-peters-square-vatican.jpg
 
Last edited:
Not good enough. What we really need is a BIPOC Trannie with a fetish for Furries and is totally out about it.
 
Answering my own question, her religious background is unclear. She was on an advisory board for a conservative Christian school that affirmed traditional marriage, gender roles and rights of the unborn.

"7 things to know about Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson" https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...t-supreme-court-nominee-ketanji-brown-jackson

Mind = blown

Hmmm...I'll be dipped.

Couple of things jumping out that don't fit a hard core Marxist or leftie type of person.

She's married to a white surgeon, who is, quite literally, a son of the American Revolution, a member of the high class Beacon Hill crowd of Boston, distantly related to Paul Ryan by marriage.

She's currently on the board of Georgetown Day School, an ultra wealthy and elite school for the ruling classes, but shows no religious affiliation I can see.

Strange...she seems more of a run of the mill leftist elitist with the background, family tree, wealth and connections that go with that, rather than a Marxist revolutionary, which the progs had been promised.
 
Last edited:
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/left-leaning-latino-groups-praise-biden-supreme-court-nominee

The leader of a conservative Latino group said he "strongly" opposes President Biden's Supreme Court pick Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson because she has aggressively worked to promote a "woke agenda."

"While no one doubts her intelligence and knowledge of the law, she has shown that she’s willing to put her radical leftists views before the letter of the law and the constitution," Alfonso Aguilar, president of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles, told Fox News Digital. "To preserve the proper balance among our constitutional branches of government, we cannot have another activist ideologue in the highest court of the land trying to push a particular political point of view."
...
The Republican National Hispanic Assembly, an organization for conservative Hispanics, also was critical of Biden's Supreme Court choice and put out a statement denouncing "targeted discrimination." The group said Democrats fail to see that minorities don't want special privileges but to be treated with dignity and respect as equals.

"Once again, Joe Biden and the Democratic Party have shown the people of our country that racial politics and political pandering are more vital to them than serving all people of our country," the Republican National Hispanic Assembly said Saturday.

The statement continued: "The Republican National Hispanic Assembly rejects targeted discrimination in the name of equality and opportunity for all people. The Hispanic community supports the best people for the job, not handpicked individuals to pursue a vote based on the color of their skin."
 
Expect Ketanji Brown Jackson to provide cover for Democrats and the deep state.

President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee shielded one of Hillary Clinton’s top State Department aides from scrutiny about his use of a personal email account to conduct official business.

Then-U.S. district judge Ketanji Brown Jackson in 2015 denied Gawker’s request for details about press aide Philippe Reines's stewardship of the account in the context of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, which sought emails Reines traded with 34 different media outlets. Jackson blocked Gawker’s request, calling it "extraordinary" and claiming there was no proof that Reines had acted in "bad faith" by using a personal email address.

Like Clinton, Reines often communicated with the press via a personal email account. That meant his communiqués were not preserved on State Department systems. When Gawker filed a FOIA request for Reines’s emails in September 2012, State Department officials were thus unable to turn up responsive records, prompting the lawsuit.
...
Jackson’s opinion parted ways with a colleague on the Washington federal trial court, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan. In a separate lawsuit, Sullivan required Clinton herself and two of her top aides, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, to submit affidavits along the lines Gawker sought. Gawker’s request mentioned Sullivan’s order and may have been based upon it.

Jackson said the Reines case was different because there was evidence that Clinton’s email system was designed to skirt FOIA altogether. In the Reines-Gawker fracas, she said there was a "total absence of any indicia of bad faith" on Reines’s part.

In fact, Reines explicitly wrote, "I want to avoid FOIA" on an email exchange from his personal account with John Heilemann and Mark Halperin in February 2009, around the time he joined the State Department. That indicia of bad faith was not in the record before Jackson so far as the Washington Free Beacon could tell.
...
https://freebeacon.com/courts/biden...shielded-top-clinton-aide-amid-email-scandal/
 
Imagine putting somebody on the SCOTUS just so they can represent their gender and skin color.

Given the choice between Biden nominating someone just for their sex and skin color, or his nominating someone for their ideology, I would much prefer the former.
 
Given the choice between Biden nominating someone just for their sex and skin color, or his nominating someone for their ideology, I would much prefer the former.

Don't worry. Political ideology (and loyalty) is still their primary concern. Biden won't be nominating a Clarence Thomas.
 
Don't worry. Political ideology (and loyalty) is still their primary concern. Biden won't be nominating a Clarence Thomas.

If it's true that Biden limited his options from the start to a black woman as a nonnegotiable, then that means that sex and race were so important that ideology was at most secondary. Within the pool of available black women, it's safe to say that there were plenty of options available to him that would not have required him to nominate someone like Clarence Thomas. But still he was forced to exclude from consideration numerous candidates who very well may have proven to be more effective at advancing his legislative causes. This tying of his own hands is more good than bad.
 
Well, we see how picking only a colored woman for the office of Vice President has worked out.

For fuck's sake I'd be flabbergasted if this broad has an IQ of 90.

Living proof of the Peter Principle.


Watch: Kamala Harris Laughs Awkwardly During Press Conference with Polish President

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...uring-press-conference-with-polish-president/

CHARLIE SPIERING 10 Mar 2022

Vice President Kamala Harris suffered an embarrassing moment on the international stage on Thursday, during a press conference with the president of Poland in Warsaw.

Each time a question was asked by a reporter, the vice president appeared uncertain who was expected to answer first, even though the question was directed to her.

But after a reporter asked Harris a question about Ukrainian refugees and also a follow-up question to Polish President Andrzej Duda, Harris was surprised when Duda looked at her expectedly to answer first.

“OK,” she said awkwardly, pausing and looking down at her notes.

“A friend in need is a friend indeed,” she continued, bursting into laughter and gesturing to Duda to answer.
 
Well, we see how picking only a colored woman for the office of Vice President has worked out.

For fuck's sake I'd be flabbergasted if this broad has an IQ of 90.

Living proof of the Peter Principle.


Watch: Kamala Harris Laughs Awkwardly During Press Conference with Polish President

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...uring-press-conference-with-polish-president/

CHARLIE SPIERING 10 Mar 2022

Vice President Kamala Harris suffered an embarrassing moment on the international stage on Thursday, during a press conference with the president of Poland in Warsaw.

Each time a question was asked by a reporter, the vice president appeared uncertain who was expected to answer first, even though the question was directed to her.

But after a reporter asked Harris a question about Ukrainian refugees and also a follow-up question to Polish President Andrzej Duda, Harris was surprised when Duda looked at her expectedly to answer first.

“OK,” she said awkwardly, pausing and looking down at her notes.

“A friend in need is a friend indeed,” she continued, bursting into laughter and gesturing to Duda to answer.

The bubble headed bimbo strikes again.

I could care less what color or sex a nominee is. I want them to be competent, and in the case of the Supreme Court, neutral and unbiased. Biden's pick will be decidedly biased, and work towards political agendas rather than rule on the Constitutionality of laws and actions. Disqualified.
 
If it's true that Biden limited his options from the start to a black woman as a nonnegotiable, then that means that sex and race were so important that ideology was at most secondary. Within the pool of available black women, it's safe to say that there were plenty of options available to him that would not have required him to nominate someone like Clarence Thomas. But still he was forced to exclude from consideration numerous candidates who very well may have proven to be more effective at advancing his legislative causes. This tying of his own hands is more good than bad.
If Trump picked a nominee based on sex and color he would be impeached. I say Impeach.
 
Back
Top