Biden announced in advance that he was only going to consider ~6.8% of the population based solely on race and sex instead of anything that the potential candidate had any control over.
Topic: Ketanji Brown Jackson (Read 251 times)
Biden announced in advance that he was only going to consider ~6.8% of the population based solely on race and sex instead of anything that the potential candidate had any control over.
Although I am not from there, but from my research I discovered that President Joe Biden Appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson after the retirement of Justice Stephen Breyer. And president Joe Biden was seriously looking for a competent, brilliant, unbiased, incorrupt, credentials and brighter judge to replace Justice Stephen Breyer, and Ketanji was nominated and it was base on meritocracy. And she was exceptional to occupy the position so she appointed. And she became the 116th Associate Justice in Unted States of America.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/kbj/
Though must of those criteria are a mere Political jargons. Race and Sex are some of the motives to select people in Office. But I was thinking that, these things only happens in the 3rd world nations, I didn't know that, it happens in the advance Countries like USA. Because meritocracy is one of the biggest problem in the African States. They give or appoint someone to occupy an office when the person is not even merited it.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/kbj/
Though must of those criteria are a mere Political jargons. Race and Sex are some of the motives to select people in Office. But I was thinking that, these things only happens in the 3rd world nations, I didn't know that, it happens in the advance Countries like USA. Because meritocracy is one of the biggest problem in the African States. They give or appoint someone to occupy an office when the person is not even merited it.
That said, there are several things I like about Jackson:
- She seems likely to be supportive of criminal justice reform: her uncle was sentenced to life in prison for nonviolent drug offenses, she helped write improved sentencing guidelines, and she wrote a thesis on how prosecutorial discretion & plea bargains are a perversion of justice. I am very supportive of reforming the broken US criminal justice system.
It is not up to the judiciary to "support" any kind of "reform" of the law. - She seems likely to be supportive of criminal justice reform: her uncle was sentenced to life in prison for nonviolent drug offenses, she helped write improved sentencing guidelines, and she wrote a thesis on how prosecutorial discretion & plea bargains are a perversion of justice. I am very supportive of reforming the broken US criminal justice system.
If a law is suboptimal, is flawed, or otherwise undesired, provided the law is constitutional, the judiciary should not invalidate the law. It is up to the legislature (congress) to change the law, as congress is directly accountable to voters, while judges' jobs are to follow the law. A supreme court justice publically favoring changing the law is going to pervert justice as lower counts will be hesitant to implement the law as written.
Choosing a candidate based on certain criteria such as sex or race is contrary to meritocracy. Biden will not choose the best candidate for the job using these benchmarks.
Obviously. Even though what you said is obvious, it cannot be said enough. I think it is also important to note that when Justice Thomas was being confirmed, then-Senator Biden said that if Thomas was not black, he would not be up for nomination. This statement was incredibly racist. The same can be said about Kenji-Brown, as Biden explicitly said it is true both on the campaign trail, and immediately prior to nominating her.
Thursday 7th April, 2022 was a historic moment for the United State as the Senate confirmed Ketanji Brown Jackson as the first black female Supreme Court Justice. Everyone knews that her screening in the senate wouldn't be easy because of the partisan nature of most senators. Indeed the confirmation process was highly divisive, contentious and emotionally draining.
During the confirmation process Republican senators accused Ketanji of being “soft” on child pornographers and sympathetic to terrorists. A senator even suggested that she might have been sympathetic to Nazi criminals. But her responses were outstanding that Jackson picked up support from three Senate Republicans achieving a bipartisan, 53-47 approval. Her confirmation period of 42 days is among the shortest in the history of the US.
Congratulations to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
https://guardian.ng/news/us-senate-confirms-first-black-woman-to-supreme-court-ketanji-brown-jackson/
During the confirmation process Republican senators accused Ketanji of being “soft” on child pornographers and sympathetic to terrorists. A senator even suggested that she might have been sympathetic to Nazi criminals. But her responses were outstanding that Jackson picked up support from three Senate Republicans achieving a bipartisan, 53-47 approval. Her confirmation period of 42 days is among the shortest in the history of the US.
Congratulations to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
https://guardian.ng/news/us-senate-confirms-first-black-woman-to-supreme-court-ketanji-brown-jackson/
Russia invasion of Ukraine is really denying the politics and society section of quality and educating posts. Our eyes are all focused on the happenings in Ukraine. Majority of the post in this section is about the invasion. This war is really causing brain drain.
Facts, Putin should be awarded a Nobel Prize for essentially killing COVID. Half the people obsessed with Ukraine have probably never even heard of the Nagorno-Karabakh war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, or the current civil wars in Ethiopia, Libya, Mexico, to name a few. Every human life is equal, but apparently Ukraine's borders are more sovereign than the rest of the world right now.
She's a safe bet for democrats. Conservatives are the ones that do terribly when scouting SCOTUS judges. Seems like the generic liberal judge that will reliably vote with all the other liberals on the bench. Though I'd argue: If you cannot define what a "woman" is, you probably should not serve.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWtGzJxiONU
Woke gender ideology has consequences, and as it turns out, these sort of radical ideas and the erasure of sex biology will make it to the highest law of the land (it was already there, but now they just have an extra vote). How difficult would it be for Jackson to articulate that a woman is merely a biological female? For argument's sake, let's accept her premise that she isn't a biologist. But I hope that wouldn't mean that she'd need to be, say, a veterinarian to identify a dog from a horse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWtGzJxiONU
Woke gender ideology has consequences, and as it turns out, these sort of radical ideas and the erasure of sex biology will make it to the highest law of the land (it was already there, but now they just have an extra vote). How difficult would it be for Jackson to articulate that a woman is merely a biological female? For argument's sake, let's accept her premise that she isn't a biologist. But I hope that wouldn't mean that she'd need to be, say, a veterinarian to identify a dog from a horse.
These politicians and radical-left media outlets like CNN talk about diversity, but they talk about the wrong diversity. Diversity is not solely employing those who account for only 12% of the population. Diversity, especially in a court room, should be diversity in terms of philosophical ideas and premises. All politicians, CNN speakers etc, are not diverse, they come from the same affluent neighbourhoods with Ivy League degrees and six figure salaries. They find new ways to try and be oppressed, whilst tweeting from their luxurious condos at the top of the newest buildings in the metro areas.
The fact that Ketanji Jackson, a person elected solely because she's a black woman, couldn't define what a woman is when questioned.
Imagine earning a high role and your dream job because of your appearance, not because of your talent and hard work, I don't know how she sleeps at night.
Meritocracy is dying in the US and it's alarming that not many people recognise this. One idea I was thinking about the other day is that the US could consider offering asylum to high-skilled Russian and Chinese students, was just a thought.
The fact that Ketanji Jackson, a person elected solely because she's a black woman, couldn't define what a woman is when questioned.
Imagine earning a high role and your dream job because of your appearance, not because of your talent and hard work, I don't know how she sleeps at night.
Meritocracy is dying in the US and it's alarming that not many people recognise this. One idea I was thinking about the other day is that the US could consider offering asylum to high-skilled Russian and Chinese students, was just a thought.
Recent survyey in the US have indicated that Ketangi's nomination and confirmation is supported by most Americans. Her popularity net point level stands at +27, just 6 points less than Clarence Thomas (Thomas' +33 rating is the highest in 30 years). Though unlikely, her popularity might influence some Republicans to vote for her confirmation. Nevertheless,she will definitely be confirmed because no Democrat has showed any sign of disapproval.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/03/26/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court-biden/index.html
Russia invasion of Ukraine is really denying the politics and society section of quality and educating posts. Our eyes are all focused on the happenings in Ukraine. Majority of the post in this section is about the invasion. This war is really causing brain drain.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/03/26/politics/ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court-biden/index.html
Russia invasion of Ukraine is really denying the politics and society section of quality and educating posts. Our eyes are all focused on the happenings in Ukraine. Majority of the post in this section is about the invasion. This war is really causing brain drain.
I think Biden is pleasing a significant part of his electorate as well as putting a candidate that is likely to rule in favour of progressive measures. Not being an US citizen, I have no doubt that there are hundreds if not thousands of people who are professionally qualified for the role, this is - I am just stating the obvious - a political message.
US is influential in the world's tendencies an for that I do not like is how it has been presented, as "seeking race / gender representation". I would have loved Biden completely ignoring the race and gender and simply stating the merits of the candidate and her views.
A comment on race an gender, in my view, diminishes the candidate's real merits, her successes and ambitions, reducing it to a "you are there 'cause you are a black woman" - implying "you are not really worth as a professional, it is just you are the right colour".
US is influential in the world's tendencies an for that I do not like is how it has been presented, as "seeking race / gender representation". I would have loved Biden completely ignoring the race and gender and simply stating the merits of the candidate and her views.
A comment on race an gender, in my view, diminishes the candidate's real merits, her successes and ambitions, reducing it to a "you are there 'cause you are a black woman" - implying "you are not really worth as a professional, it is just you are the right colour".
Choosing a candidate based on certain criteria such as sex or race is contrary to meritocracy. Biden will not choose the best candidate for the job using these benchmarks.
But don't forget that if Ketangi is confirmed she would become the first African-American Supreme Court Justice and this would give a sense of belonging to a particular set of people that have suffered discrimination. It would also have a ripple effect on the acceptance of women in politics worldwide. We have currently seen women protest in Nigeria and India because of discrimination.
Also during his campaign, Biden promised African Americans a better deal and he got their votes. Hence, Ketangi is the pay.
I also dislike the fact that most of these Justices are from the same educational class. This would make them have relatively the same perception on many issues.
It would start becoming difficult to get Justices that would construct and interpret the constitution based on public meaning at the time of founding or the intent of the drafters or adopters of the constitution. This is because originalist are becoming few due to age. Most young Justices like Ketangi would like to interpret the constitution based on terms that would be understood by people at the time they were ratified, as well as the context in which those terms appeared currently. They would quickly interpret the law based on it's ammended state because they might not understand the intention of the drafters, hence they would focus on the plain meaning of the legal document.
It's a really big problem because in order to maintain the principles and foundations of our founding fathers we need constitutional-originalists
Although having two of her verdicts overturned recently by higher courts and her controversial statement that Presidents (Trump) are not Kings in the McGahn case might be used against her. But generally she is really qualified for the job.
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/constitutional-originalism-supreme-court
But don't forget that if Ketangi is confirmed she would become the first African-American Supreme Court Justice and this would give a sense of belonging to a particular set of people that have suffered discrimination. It would also have a ripple effect on the acceptance of women in politics worldwide. We have currently seen women protest in Nigeria and India because of discrimination.
Also during his campaign, Biden promised African Americans a better deal and he got their votes. Hence, Ketangi is the pay.
I also dislike the fact that most of these Justices are from the same educational class. This would make them have relatively the same perception on many issues.
It would start becoming difficult to get Justices that would construct and interpret the constitution based on public meaning at the time of founding or the intent of the drafters or adopters of the constitution. This is because originalist are becoming few due to age. Most young Justices like Ketangi would like to interpret the constitution based on terms that would be understood by people at the time they were ratified, as well as the context in which those terms appeared currently. They would quickly interpret the law based on it's ammended state because they might not understand the intention of the drafters, hence they would focus on the plain meaning of the legal document.
It's a really big problem because in order to maintain the principles and foundations of our founding fathers we need constitutional-originalists
Although having two of her verdicts overturned recently by higher courts and her controversial statement that Presidents (Trump) are not Kings in the McGahn case might be used against her. But generally she is really qualified for the job.
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/constitutional-originalism-supreme-court
The Ukraine situation has (rightly) been consuming all the oxygen, but a very important piece of news for the US is that Biden announced his Supreme Court pick recently, Ketanji Brown Jackson. What do you think of her?
I strongly dislike how Biden announced in advance that he was only going to consider ~6.8% of the population based solely on race and sex instead of anything that the potential candidate had any control over. I also dislike that with her, 8 out of the 9 justices will be Ivy League graduates, which isn't exactly a diverse group of justices. (There's a very distinct ruling class in the US. Two of the Supreme Court justices went to the same high school, Jackson is related by marriage to Paul Ryan, etc.) And although it's difficult to get a good read on her legal philosophy before she's actually on the Court, the fact that Biden is nominating her means that she will probably be far from a constitutional-textualist, which will end up being my biggest problem with her long-term.
That said, there are several things I like about Jackson:
- She seems likely to be supportive of criminal justice reform: her uncle was sentenced to life in prison for nonviolent drug offenses, she helped write improved sentencing guidelines, and she wrote a thesis on how prosecutorial discretion & plea bargains are a perversion of justice. I am very supportive of reforming the broken US criminal justice system.
- As a public defender, she defended the rights of even unpopular people, such as a Guantanamo Bay detainee and a convicted tax evader.
- She's had several rulings in favor of corporations and against the government, which shows that she's at least not 100% partisan.
One of the biggest things that Republicans are complaining about is the McGahn ruling, but IMO that's a pretty unimportant case in the grand scheme of things, not necessarily indicative of any partisan bias, and although I don't care much about the underlying legal question, I suppose that I like that her ruling was against the power of the already-overly-powerful executive branch.
Overall, although she's obviously not going to be anywhere near as good as my favorite justice, Gorsuch, I think that she was probably among the best nominees that a Democrat could be expected to nominate.
I strongly dislike how Biden announced in advance that he was only going to consider ~6.8% of the population based solely on race and sex instead of anything that the potential candidate had any control over. I also dislike that with her, 8 out of the 9 justices will be Ivy League graduates, which isn't exactly a diverse group of justices. (There's a very distinct ruling class in the US. Two of the Supreme Court justices went to the same high school, Jackson is related by marriage to Paul Ryan, etc.) And although it's difficult to get a good read on her legal philosophy before she's actually on the Court, the fact that Biden is nominating her means that she will probably be far from a constitutional-textualist, which will end up being my biggest problem with her long-term.
That said, there are several things I like about Jackson:
- She seems likely to be supportive of criminal justice reform: her uncle was sentenced to life in prison for nonviolent drug offenses, she helped write improved sentencing guidelines, and she wrote a thesis on how prosecutorial discretion & plea bargains are a perversion of justice. I am very supportive of reforming the broken US criminal justice system.
- As a public defender, she defended the rights of even unpopular people, such as a Guantanamo Bay detainee and a convicted tax evader.
- She's had several rulings in favor of corporations and against the government, which shows that she's at least not 100% partisan.
One of the biggest things that Republicans are complaining about is the McGahn ruling, but IMO that's a pretty unimportant case in the grand scheme of things, not necessarily indicative of any partisan bias, and although I don't care much about the underlying legal question, I suppose that I like that her ruling was against the power of the already-overly-powerful executive branch.
Overall, although she's obviously not going to be anywhere near as good as my favorite justice, Gorsuch, I think that she was probably among the best nominees that a Democrat could be expected to nominate.
Jump to: