"But she’s also an insider — a former clerk for Stephen Breyer, the justice she would replace, and a product of [Harvard Law School]. Jackson has already been confirmed by the Senate three times, including for her current seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That court is often a feeder institution for the Supreme Court, in part because it deals mainly with arcane matters of administrative law, rather than the political kindling that tends to dominate nomination fights — abortion, guns, gender, freedom of speech, religion. Senators and their aides have combed through reams of pages of Jackson’s judicial record — including the nearly 600 opinions that she wrote as a district court judge... [T]he coming battle over her nomination will resemble what fans of professional wrestling call 'kayfabe.' As the sociologist Nick Rogers said of the term in a guest opinion essay back in 2017, 'We’ll present you something clearly fake under the insistence that it’s real, and you will experience genuine emotion. Neither party acknowledges the bargain, or else the magic is ruined.'"
From "Biden Made a Historic Supreme Court Pick. What Now? Nominating the first Black woman is both bold and politically savvy, Democrats told us. Republicans are divided over how much of a fight to put up" by Blake Hounshell and Leah Askarinam (NYT).
Here's the 2017 Nick Rogers essay, "How Wrestling Explains Alex Jones and Donald Trump." Rogers is a lawyer/sociologist. Excerpt:
Although the etymology of the word is a matter of debate, for at least 50 years “kayfabe” has referred to the unspoken contract between wrestlers and spectators: We’ll present you something clearly fake under the insistence that it’s real, and you will experience genuine emotion. Neither party acknowledges the bargain, or else the magic is ruined....
The artifice is not only understood but appreciated: The performer cares enough about the viewer’s emotions to want to influence them. Kayfabe isn’t about factual verifiability; it’s about emotional fidelity. Although their athleticism is impressive, skilled wrestlers captivate because they do what sociologists call “emotional labor” — the professional management of other people’s feelings....
Chants of “Build the Wall” aren’t about erecting a structure; they’re about how cathartic it feels, in the moment, to yell with venom against a common enemy. Voting to repeal Obamacare again and again only to face President Obama’s veto was kayfabe. So is shouting “You lie!” during a health care speech. It is President Bush in a flight suit, it is Vladimir Putin shirtless on a horse, it is virtually everything Kim Jong-un does....
I think it's easier to say "political theater," but "kayfabe" has perhaps a little more suspension of disbelief... or is it a little less? More catharsis? Less catharsis? It certainly has more masculinity — more glistening muscular definition and slippery sweat.
Posts
72 comments:
It isn't Barack Obama with Mom pants and a helmet on a girly bike.
"But she’s also an insider — a former clerk for Stephen Breyer, the justice she would replace, and a product of [Harvard Law School]. Jackson has already been confirmed by the Senate three times, including for her current seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit."
Hey, hey, ho, ho,
Affirmative action’s the way to go,
Hey, hey, ho, ho,
Affirmative action’s the way to go,
Always received a government/taxpayer paycheck; never worked in the dreaded private sector.
Yep, she’ll be able to relate to the American spirit of limited government. Bet on it.
Shove over, Wide Latina.
She might be great among black women, but I don't know how good that is. So far no examples of brilliance have been offered. One or two would go a long way. Zero also goes a long way.
So apparently only Republicans do this "kayfabe"?
"Kayfabe" is at least emotionally honest, based on a respect for the audience and appreciation that the performers need them to participate in the illusion.
"Political Theater" is dishonest. The actors on the stage see their audience as rubes and a necessary evil.
You never see wrestlers arguing for the elimination of their audience. Politicians are forever trying to adjust the rules to reduce the influence of the populace.
It could get awkward if someone finds some incendiary essay she wrote in high school and she has to disavow her own writing or comments.
Here’s a picture capturing what that could look like.
Link to photo
Mediocre is usually the safe choice.
The Great Malenko had more integrity than Bill Clinton.
We’ll present you something clearly fake under the insistence that it’s real, and you will experience genuine emotion. Neither party acknowledges the bargain, or else the magic is ruined.
Also known as the Uniparty.
She is destined to two things for the rest of her career:
1. Her votes will be expected to follow the goals of the Congressional Black Caucus at all times. James Clyburn of South Carolina sees himself as responsible for Biden's nomination and election, and therefore (for the first year) was paid back by setting all policy priorities and telling Joe what to do (as Biden truly needs this). However, we've seen failure after failure and falling public opinion, so this nomination may be the last gift to Clyburn. The 2022 election awaits.
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/595882-clyburn-hails-bidens-pick-for-supreme-court-outstanding
2. Ms. Jackson will be tagged as an affirmative action hire in some sectors and her court opinions will always be discounted as less than the best. Despite this left wing media will always fawn over her, and thereby make the situation much worse. This is precisely the opposite of what happened to Clarence Thomas (i.e., he was branded a fake and a failure regardless of his legal opinions), but with the shoe on the other foot the left may be in for disappointment and angst. Cognitive dissonance and wishful thinking are baked in from the start.
There's a lot of projection going on here.
I’m surprised that was in the NYT. They actually looked past Jackson’s skin color and recognized this is a same-old same-old good old boy’s club nomination. How’d this get past the censors?
All ya gotta do is find a letter in a Senator’s desk drawer, invoke the precedent of the committee and run out the clock. Not even Collins and Romney could stop it…
…I don’t recall seeing too much rejection of that strategy by our OP when shoe was on the other foot but if anyone wants to cite some…
She is qualified and will be confirmed. If Republicans were smart they'd will vote to confirm and thereby look like adults worthy of leadership as opposed to a bunch of rancorous malcontents. But no, they will play to their base and fecklessly engage in embarrassing theater as their MGT/Trump cult base gets played.
The Dems missed similar opportunities with recent GOP nominations because they're even worse. The American people are fed up with dysfunctional political theater (where the party out of power defines its policy positions simply by opposing the positions of the party in power), but the nutjob AOC and MTG wings continue to run the show.
And I agree that Jackson does not appear to be transformationally brilliant, but we true conservatives should view that as a good thing.
"Biden Made a Historic Supreme Court Pick. What Now? Nominating the first Black woman is both bold and politically savvy, Democrats told us. Republicans are divided over how much of a fight to put up" by Blake Hounshell and Leah Askarinam (NYT)."
It is neither a bold nor savvy move. It largely a cowardly move, a knee bending submission to the massive white guilt carried around by white progressives and thrown around by black collectivists. It is the easy move. The safe move to stave off the rush of tut-tutting that would come from Laurence Tribe, CNN, The View, the editorial staff at The New York Times, and millions of school-aged young people.
Looking over our country and declaring that you're going to select the next Supreme Court Justice based not on his or her qualities as a human, not on their skills as a jurist, but based on their color and presence of a vagina is about as low IQ a way to go as I can come up with. It is appeasing the loud voices while ignoring your nation, and helping neither in the process.
Congrats to both the NY Times writers and Joe Biden's staff for displaying a horrid cowardice coupled with ignorance.
One other point: "...a product of [Harvard Law School]. Jackson has already been confirmed by the Senate three times, including for her current seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. That court is often a feeder institution for the Supreme Court,..."
I've looked, but cannot find the clause in our Constitution that says Supreme Court Justices must have attended Harvard or Yale. She's another one of the same mindset already present on the Court. For those who spend a career screaming 'diversity', they seem to get all warm and cozy knowing their Jurists (and their elected officials) all come from the same schools of thought- literally.
From what I've learned in my years on this earth: there are some pretty smart, capable people found all over. It would be refreshing, and I have to believe, very impactful to get some new 'schools of thought' injected into our Political sphere. The current one seems to be failing.
I know nothing of her actual abilities because all we'll get to know is that she's Black, and she's a woman. What else do I need to know? And if I protest? I'm a racists, misogynist. But then, we all knew that going in, didn't we?
If only the Washington Generals could get a better power forward... these guys are due, they got so close so many times. And we need some refs who aren't asleep at the switch, the Globetrotters had a ladder out on the court last time.
I do think this is a better metaphor. I don't think it's accurate to identify the Globetrotters with one party or the other... that misses out on the critical importance.
The refs (i. e. the media), the Globetrotters, and the Generals are all part of the same thing, which looks like a basketball game, but they are not really playing basketball. All three of them are working together to get your money.
But with the Globetrotters and the Generals you only have to pay if you actually put your butt in their seats. The kayfabe in DC extracts our money by force. They gain power and influence for themselves by spending our money on their friends, patrons, and clients, and they retire wealthy because of the friends they bought with our money.
It's little different from Ancient Rome or the Gilded Age. Davy Crockett (THAT Davy Crockett) is supposed to have warned us back in the 1830s:
The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be trusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.
Let's see... Biden is on a roll! Catastrophe awaits. Best and brightest wait in the back of the bus.
I really like Tulsi Gabbard. Be nice to bring some sanity back to the Democrats.
Has anyone noticed that when she is seated, Blacks will be overrepresented on the court?
That's if you accept that a Black child from rural Georgia whose first language was a mix of English and several West African languages brought here by slaves is actually Black.
It's a chain link fence match where the combatants are manacled together and placed in a Thunderdrome setting where only one man leaves. Fake but fun if you enjoy that kind of thing.
Historic… she’s the third person of African descent to be nominated and the sixth woman.
Democrat appointees to the Court are simply a voting bloc. If you want to rank them as to who is most imaginative in sculpting law to further the leftist agenda, have at it.
The law in this country is as worthless as the paper it's written on.
Barring any shocking revelations, I bet she will get her hearing (although the Lujan recovery is a bit of a wild card), be treated with the utmost respect, and be confirmed with at least a handful of Republican votes. Will be disappointing to lefties questing for drama.
Nothing to see here.
No matter who Biden picked you could predict their votes 99.9% of the time on anything important.
He might as well make it about racial spoils and further degrade our social fabric.
One thing to consider in nominating a SCOTUS Justice is what kind of influence the nominee will have on the other Justices.
With Kavanaugh being a squish, Roberts a politician and Coney-Barrett a wannabe saint, the new justice may have a lot more influence than expected.
"'We’ll present you something clearly fake under the insistence that it’s real, and you will experience genuine emotion. Neither party acknowledges the bargain, or else the magic is ruined.'"
Huh? What "genuine emotion" have we cynical righties experienced in the theater surrounding the Supreme Court? Apart from the emotion of revulsion at GOP picks turning left, that is. But that's not fake.
Mike Petrik said...
She is qualified and will be confirmed. If Republicans were smart they'd will vote to confirm and thereby look like adults worthy of leadership as opposed to a bunch of rancorous malcontents. But no, they will play to their base and fecklessly engage in embarrassing theater as their MGT/Trump cult base gets played.
And I agree that Jackson does not appear to be transformationally brilliant, but we true conservatives should view that as a good thing.
I'm glad I got kicked out of the "conservative" club during the Trump/Cruz nomination wars.
Can someone please point out to me when politics hasn't been kayfabe?
Her presence on the Court will prove affirmative action is not dead yet.
She's qualified, blah, blah, blah. Depends on what is meant by "qualified." Sure she has all the right paper credentials, went to the right schools, got the right clerkships and government jobs, etc.
By that measure, there are a several hundred people qualified to be on the Court. That's no reason to confirm them, anymore than people should trust any other flavor of "expert," like those CDC brainiacs.
The Senate isn't a rubber stamp. Jurisprudence and judging philosophy counts too -- and can disqualify someone. And a vote to confirm carries with in an aura of endorsement. Sorry, but not even sitting judges from Harvard and a prior SC clerkship get a free ride.
She is the most radical of the three that have been mentioned. A "no" vote is entirely appropriate on the merits, just as the white progressives rejected the more moderate BLACK WOMAN from South Carolina.
My hope is that the first Republican to question her begin by apologizing to her for Biden labeling her an affirmative action pick, a stigma that will unfairly follow her for the rest of her career, Then follow be saying that Republicans do not treat people as merely a member of a racial group and he will address her as an individual on her own merits. Remind her that Democrats would not do this to the previous black woman nominated to the First Circuit by a Republican president because they could not let the first black woman to advance to the on deck position be conservative and nominated by a Republican. And remind her that Biden himself led the effort against that black woman. Ask if it is OK with her to question her on that basis and not take every challenge as a racial attack.
That would produce fun theatre. Democrat heads would explode at the placing of racism at the foot of Biden and the Democrats.
Wendybar
You forgot the flat tire and the trailer on Mr O's wild bike adventure.
Kayfabe indeed!
I find all this absurd. She'll be one justice out of nine. And she will vote just like Breyer did - that is leftist. Remember the "wise Latina"? what difference was there in terms of votes between her and Ginsberg? Zero.
Too bad Biden didn't appoint the black woman for SC, at least she did NOT go to Harvard or Yale.
Confirm her. Confirm her quickly. And then tell her to sit and wait and do nothing for four months since the position isn't going to be open until then.
What if she is confirmed and then in the many MONTHS until Breyer's retirement actually takes effect -- assuming he does not withdraw it -- she does something or says something or something is discovered about her that would be grounds for even Biden to reject her. What then?
Typical Biden Administration -- not making decisions on the merits, but by how they can hype it for PR purposes, including timing in order to get an applause line at the State of the Union. Meanwhile, she languishes waiting for Breyer to go, and people stand around tapping their foot and glaring at Breyer pressuring him to step down early, rather than in July.
"She might be great among black women, but I don't know how good that is. So far no examples of brilliance have been offered."
Have any of our current sitting justices have shown any examples of brilliance? In the history the court, how many of its justices have shown brilliance? I don't ask as a form of excusing whatever deficiencies she may reveal--I've never heard of her and know nothing about her. I'm just skeptical of the idea that our Supreme Court justices, as a whole, are or have been distinctively brilliant jurists. These are political appointments.
Look, I could be on the SCOTUS. And I'd be just as good as Brown.
I'd decide the cases based on my feelings and politics. And then if I ever had to write an opinion, I'd farm it out to by super-smart law clerks. If I decided to go Right, then the NYT would call me "Clarence Thomas's mini-me" if I went left, the NYT's would praise me for my "bravery and wisdom".
What @Mike Petrik said.
The next "Historic" appointment will be a left-handed black woman.
The lady may be well qualified. Or not. I have no idea.
But when our prez announces that the reason she is picked is color and sex, that makes her an affirmative action hire and forever stains her with doubt.
Don't believe me? Look at Clarence Thomas. 30 years of demonstrated competence on the court and he us still belittled by many fascists as "an AA hire"
I also agree with others here and other part comments over the years. Harvard/Yale, yale/Harvard.
Can't we get a bit of diversity, of the kind that matters?
Other than comey Barrett, when was the last time we had a non harvard/yale Supreme.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
"Qualified" -- you all realize, don't you, that by the traditional criteria, our current vice president, soon to be president, is "qualified" and was even pushed by some for the job?
Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the "great jurists" of Court history, was eminently qualified. He was also a monster.
Critter said...
My hope is that the first Republican to question her begin by apologizing to her for Biden labeling her an affirmative action pick, a stigma that will unfairly follow her for the rest of her career, Then follow be saying that Republicans do not treat people as merely a member of a racial group and he will address her as an individual on her own merits.
Oh, do I love this.
Sadly, won't happen.
The truth is that neither brilliance nor even competence are really required for this job. That has been the case, probably, since the beginning of the court. On any politically contentious matter, most of the justices votes are 100% predictable- Jackson's will be, too.
I don't think the Republicans will fight this- she will get confirmation by the same three Republican's who voted to confirm her to Garland's old seat, and probably a few others. Even if Lujan falls into a vegetative state, but doesn't die, it isn't worth the blowback to hold up this confirmation, and I don't think McConnell would do so.
Trump represents a fusion of politics and entertainment. That's not really anything new. Trump actually came out of the entertainment world, so he could alter the mixture by being more entertaining.
"Build the Wall" was about cutting off illegal immigration. The actual wall was part of that, not all, but the focus was still on achieving a real world goal.
That's all a far cry from today's world where Biden, Psaki, Blinken, and Sullivan say things that are manifestly untrue and aren't called out for it
kayfabe
Is that like Covfefe?
Safe choice? Her background suggests she is another liberal ideologue - read "scofflaw" - who will never depart from the agenda. She has been tacitly endorsed by turncoat Paul Ryan, the most destructive, cowardly Republican Speaker in my lifetime, who didnt bother to mention that she is a relative by marriage.
And 600 opinions in 8 years as a District Court Judge? A mark of self-glory. The District Court Judges where I clerked may have averaged 25 published opinions a year despite the avalanche of habeas petitions and civil rights actions from inmates in several prisons in the district.
So, an arrogant, defendant loving, progressive ideologue from Harvard Law sounds like par for the QuidProJoe course. "Safe choice" for the Constitution? Not likely.
the notion that she wouldn't be a safe choice b/c she's a black woman is laughable. It's evident she's gotten to where she because of those traits and not in spite of them. That's how affirmative action works.
"You lie!" as kayfabe. It's obvious Nick Rogers can't handle the truth.
Christopher Blasey Ford, white courtesy phone.
Christopher Blasey Ford, white courtesy phone.
I am Laslo.
I would like to examine her high school year books, to see if they contain any secret codes like "FFFFFFFourth of July". Which of course indicates a love of white supremacy and gang rapes.
If the Republicans believe that they hold the power to not confirm, then reject the nomination and make Beiden nominate the less radical black woman, if not then let this one go, but do all the questioning short and quietly with no drama. Pleasantly get it on the record that she has radical ideas and keep it short.
The diversity I demand is to nominate justices from non ivy schools. Why can’t someone from Wisconsin, Georgia, Michigan, Berkeley, or Texas get in. Even Northwestern or Duke for Christ’s sake. Pretty disgusting.
Hey< what could go wrong? We did this outta fear...
https://brownstone.org/articles/a-new-age-of-barbarism/
Now try evil, it's in vogue.
Confirmation of this "pedigreed" nominee should not take place until Breyer resigns or dies.
I can see KBJ and ACB bonding, to the disappointment of Kagan and the vexation of Sotomayor. ACB will move KBJ toward the center and vice versa. Kavanaugh and Roberts will continue to play for the DC elites and the Court will muddle on for a few years. It will continue to be 3-3-3, but KBJ will be more centrist than Breyer.
Then President DeSantis will replace Thomas with Amul Thapar, Alito with Barbara Lagoa, and Sotomayor (RIP) with Judge James Chiun-Yue Ho and the Court will finally be conservative, 4-3-2. And the world will not come to an end.
The only mystery with Supreme Court nominees is when Republicans nominate them. Republican nominees range from staunch conservatives like Thomas, to moderates whose adherence to the Constitution suddenly evaporates when they really, really, really want something like Kennedy, to out and out left wingers like Souter. With Democrat nominees there is no question of how they will rule on anything political. It is just a matter if you get someone with a keen legal mind who can come up with a well-thought out legal theory to justify ignoring the Constitution this time, like Kagan, or someone the legal equivalent of a bomb thrower, like Sotomayor.
Looking at the sort of people with whom Joe Biden has populated his administration (e.g., Blinken, Austin, Sullivan, Garland) it seems fair to assume that Ketanji Brown Jackson is an incompetent jurist and all around evil human being.
The only thing on her record that bothers me is the defense of Guantanamo inmates though without looking at the arguments I can't say whether there is anything blameworthy. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." would make her a no vote from me. I expect Shumer will hold off the vote until Lujan recovers or is replaced just to be sure.
If I were questioning her I'd probably ask her about the January 6 defendants who are being treated shamefully and about qualified immunity.
Oh all the “conservatives” tripping over their feet to avoid sounding racist - by the Left’s new definition. Spoiler alert, anything you say about this woman will be seen as racist if you aren’t black. Even when praising a black person a white person is skipping through a mine field these days.
She is a hard left leftist. That is more than enough for me to be against her. That she is a black leftist in a time when all black leftists are inherently racist against whites is even more reason. Don’t believe her. Don’t trust her. Let her nomination die.
Most of all stop bending over backwards to make yourself believe that you “don’t know what her qualifications or beliefs are”. Who she is at this moment in time tells you all you need to know about her. She hates traditional America and wants to replace it with a leftist utopia where she and hers are on top. She will be the MOST destructive Supreme Court justice of all time. Just as any criticism of Obama was immediately deemed racist any criticism of this woman will be also. So what we are doing is handing the SC to the hard left corruptocrats.
Hey what's a little judicial overreach? I mean, it's not like we have been strangers to overreach from the other branches of government for the last two years, right? C'mon man!
If Republicans were smart they'd (sic) will vote to confirm and thereby look like adults worthy of leadership as opposed to a bunch of rancorous malcontents.
Like the democrats always do ... right?
From "Biden Made a Historic Supreme Court Pick. What Now? Nominating the first Black woman is both bold and politically savvy, Democrats told us. Republicans are divided over how much of a fight to put up" by Blake Hounshell and Leah Askarinam (NYT).
Well, of course! there's teh "we always want to fail" caucus, that doesn't want to fight at all, and then there's the members who actually take seriously their Oath to "protect the US Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic", who know that every Democrat "judge" is a domestic enemy of the US Constitution, and so wish to fight.
The ones who want to win will pull out every extreme Left things she's written as a lawyer / judge / clerk. They will ask her if she believes in stare decisis with respect to current SCOTUS precedent on voting rights (Shelby County), gun rights (current case will be done before they vote), and abortion (ditto).
There's also a funding religious schools case before SCOTUS, Carson v. Makin, that she can be queried on. In all cases, they can quote Feinstein et al in the paens to stare decisis, and ask her if she agrees with those statements
And, most importantly, she can be asked about the Democrats racist filibusters of Miquel Estrada and Janice Rodgers Brown (reading to her the Dems notes where they said exactly what they were doing), and ask her if she has anything to say to the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who did those racist acts.
Wh
Mike Petrik said...
She is qualified and will be confirmed. If Republicans were smart they'd will vote to confirm and thereby look like adults worthy of leadership as opposed to a bunch of rancorous malcontents. But no, they will play to their base and fecklessly engage in embarrassing theater as their MGT/Trump cult base gets played.
Are you a Democrat troll, or a "Republican" loser?
She is not remotely qualified to be on SCOTUS. She's a Leftist, and therefore a domestic enemy of the written US Constitution.
No such person is every qualified to be on any Court. that you claim otherwise shows your worthlessness, not her worthiness
Yancey Ward said...
I don't think the Republicans will fight this- she will get confirmation by the same three Republican's who voted to confirm her to Garland's old seat, and probably a few others. Even if Lujan falls into a vegetative state, but doesn't die, it isn't worth the blowback to hold up this confirmation, and I don't think McConnell would do so.
The blowback from GOP Senators being the deciding vote to confirm a Biden* nominee to SCOTUS would be nuclear
Contra what the whiners claim, the reason why the GOP lost both GA Senate seats is because the week before the election the "GOP Controlled Senate" passed a "Covid relief bill" that was all about money for Democrats and the rich, and essentially none for ordinary GOP voters.
So ordinary GOP voters stayed home, since they could see no reason why a GOP Senate would benefit them.
If the GOP wants to see that run a thousand fold, they can fold on Jackson's nomination.
We elected GOP Senators to fight everything the Democrats want to do. If they're not going to do that, there's no point in getting out and voting for them
Want to see the 2022 election become a pro-Democrat wave election? Have GOP Senators be the ones who put Jackson over the top.
That, after all, is why Douglas B. Levene and Mike Petrik support that failure
The first XX of color (i.e. bloc). The first XYZ of this, that, and the other. One step forward, two steps backward.
It was Eric Weinstein, Managing Director of Thiel Capital, who first applied the concept of Kayfabe to politics back in 2011. In interviews he’s argued that Trump’s understanding and application of Kayfabe makes him far more sophisticated than American elites would care to admit.
Solely about color. AKA Racism.
She will be confirmed because the appointment doesn't change the ideological composition of the court. Or does it? Will she be "scholarly" as we are forever told Breyer was or more nakedly ideological and results-based? Or will it matter, given that clerks (I'm told) write the opinions?
And when was the Constitution amended to mandate that all Supreme Court Justices must have gone to one of two law schools?
I think we can all agree our candidates are eminently qualified and their candidates are not.
Earnest Prole said...
I think we can all agree our candidates are eminently qualified and their candidates are not.
Nope. Most of us thought that Harriet Myers sucked
Is "first sunpuppy" on the court better or worse than "first mudshark"?
Biden's "You gotta love my liberal black woman candidate" is being overworked in the press. Laurence Tribe can't get enough of another Harvard Law School graduate on her way to SCOTUS and the strange story of Brown Jackson's college friendships with three other black women from the Harvard's Class of '92 is straight from left field. Brown Jackson is 51 years old and her friends from college just are not part of this news.
Methinks that the real story is that aging Justice Stephen Breyer went to Biden and said I'll retire if you will appoint my former clerk and the deal was struck.
Post a Comment