I don't know about "patently," but it is racist. I considered saying "insidiously racist," but, on reflection, I'll say it's somewhere on the insidiously-to-patently continuum.
Did we ever discuss any other Supreme Court nominee's LSAT score?
Here's the Carlson quote: "So is Ketanji Brown Jackson — a name that even Joe Biden has trouble pronouncing — one of the top legal minds in the entire country? We certainly hope so … so it might be time for Joe Biden to let us know what Ketanji Brown Jackson's LSAT score was."
It's very easy to say "Brown" and "Jackson," so he's just calling attention to Ketanji. What her parents named her has nothing to do with the nominee's qualifications, so why bring this up in the middle of demanding evidence of her basic intelligence? You don't have to be a genius to see that's racial.
As for "top legal minds"? Since when are Supreme Court nominees chosen from "the top legal minds"? I've never noticed that, and I've been watching the American legal scene for 40 years. In any case, law isn't like math. There's no objective test for law aptitude, and there are plenty of American law school graduates with LSAT scores in the 99th percentile who've never displayed a glint of brilliance.
But what if we could find the 9 biggest brains in the law field and make a Supreme Court out of them? We might discover they make terrible Justices. And, by the way, I believe that the 9 biggest brains — whoever you are out there, Big Brains! — would refuse to take the job. Too boring. Too restricted. No freedom to rove all over the intellectual landscape.
Let's stop pretending we love the work of the very smartest people. Not in law we don't. We actually prefer something more ordinary. We want focus on texts, adherence to precedent, grounding in practical reality. It's dumb to be an intelligence snob here, and Tucker's posturing is particularly dumb. Virulently dumb.
Posts
247 comments:
1 – 200 of 247 Newer› Newest»Why?? If they can look into other nominees yearbooks, why SHOULDN'T we know what her LSAT score was?? This is their game, we are just playing it.
If I don't like something, I call it racist too. It helps me fit in with all the better people.
ahem - every other media outlet uses her middle name.
Yeah--Judge Brown Jackson is way beyond LSAT scores at this point.
The biggest thing I learned in three years of law school and 40 years of law practice is the importance of persuasion...it is much more important than being in the right.
By the way, never trust the English newspapers' takes on US politics.
Winston Churchill used to say, as if it explained some problems in his own career, that the House of Commons hates brilliance. This might have something to do with the fact that Edmund Burke, famous today for his oratory, may never have persuaded anyone of anything in his lifetime. Churchill, on the other hand, had a tendency to impetuousness and loving war.
And of course, to say there has "always" been a process of searching the entire country for "the best" is ridiculous--an unfair attempt to say Judge Jackson is somehow below average.
He isn't highlighting that she has a non-white name, he's highlighting that she has a foreign name. Which she does. He's wrong to make that an issue, but he's not racist.
Same with the LSAT scores. Have we been asking for the LSAT scores of past Supreme Court justices? Probably. I have no evidence and no interest in looking for any because I know it's not out of line with the sorts of oppo research the parties have (sadly) been doing against justice nominees for decades.
At worst, Carlson is engaging in normal political dirty tricks and the claim that he is racist is itself a political dirty trick.
This notion that there's an insidiously-to-patently continuum is patently insidious.
I really thought Tucker was smarter than this. All our side should be saying is that Joe only cared about this lady's race and all other concerns were a distant second. And then vote no on her because that is what most Dems do to Republican nominees nowadays. Nothing personal.
Ketanji is her name. Most people don't know her. It isn't racist to say her name. Say. Her. Name.
And while he is indeed questioning her intelligence, is it racist? DIdn't we spend 8 years asking for GWB's report cards, and calling Trump stupid?
As for asking for things that don't matter....didn't we question Brett (fraternity boy name!) Kavanaugh's high school yearbook inscription?
It's all stupid, but Tucker isn't the first one on board the "let's destroy this nominee" train. He didn't make the rules. Don't hide behind calling it racism now.
Wouldn't a score on the bar exam would be a better test of a "legal mind" than the LSAT entrance exam?
Rather, is Carlson questioning whether Brown's LSAT scores justified the admission of her "skull full of mush" to HLS, which in turn justifies her appointment to the Supreme Court?
After millions of false accusations of racism, maybe Mr. Carlson felt obligated to provide a real example to the mob. But is asking about LSAT scores really out of bounds today? According to the ew rules set by the Democrats, it's OK to try and analyze scribbles in a nominee's high school yearbook. Seems to me LSAT scores are at least as revealing as the yearbook, and unlike the yearbook, at least nominally related to the nominee's ability.
Perhaps Kamala Harris has taught us to use whatever resources are available to verify the qualifications of Biden's picks.
Here it comes. Do not question the Democratic pick.
Because if you do, you are a racist.
LSAT scores are no measure for being a Supreme Court Justice. But that doesn't make it racist to ask about her LSAT score. If it were racist, then any criticism of a black candidate is racist. Are you saying that blacks don't have the ability to get a good LSAT score? If Amy Coney Barrett had a bad LSAT score do you think it wouldn't have come up, because she's white?
The narrative is being set that any criticism of Ms. Jackson means you are a racist. Don't fall into the logical fallacy, Ann.
And saying that Biden had a hard time pronouncing her name isn't racist. It's not a dig against her name. It's a dig against Biden.
Tucker's posturing is particularly dumb. Virulently dumb.
But calling a male feminist who has devoted his life to helping women and coaching girl's sports a rapist is a work of genius.
"So is Ketanji Brown Jackson — a name that even Joe Biden has trouble pronouncing — one of the top legal minds in the entire country?"
As for "top legal minds"? Since when are Supreme Court nominees chosen from "the top legal minds"? I've never noticed that
Let's look at this in context. The "so" is an indication that Carlson is responding to something. It is NOT Carlson that brought up the question of "top legal minds"; he is responding to others saying that Brown Jackson was one of the nation's "top legal minds." Well, we saw that before with the "wise Latina."
Questioning the (wholly unnecessary hype -- from DEMOCRATS) -- that she (or anyone) is a "top legal mind," "the best of the best of the best, sir!", is not unreasonable.
There is a new trend to seek out people who combined top legal minds with incredible industry, and Jackson part of it. Fifth nominee in a row to have earlier been selected to clerk on USSC. Not always a good thing. Look at Eastman.
The left went back to high school with Kavanaugh.
Don't much like Carlson's comment, but your complaints aren't fair. He is commenting on Pres. Biden's claim that the nominee is one of the top legal minds in the country - and responding that she is obviously an Affirmative Action nominee, as Biden made very clear. Carlson probably knows nothing about the nominee, just like me.
Okay, on reflection, I do like Carlson's comment! It isn't racist, except to say that Affirmative Action is racist.
This is what happens when it's announced in advance that the choice of a nominee is going to be based on affirmative action.
I think Tucker is just trying to say she may have ganged rape someone.
Joe Biden has trouble saying "Joe".
"Did we ever discuss any other Supreme Court nominee's LSAT score?"
I don't know. Did we ever nominate a Supreme Court candidate primarily on the basis of the person's (race + sex) profile? Wouldn't that idea tend to have the effect of focusing the analysis of the candidates in a different way? Wouldn't it force the criteria to a much smaller preferred group that would, by extension, narrow the field of selection unfairly and compromise the goal of selecting the very best overall candidate? Would you agree, 'Black Female' should not be a primary qualification for a Supreme Court Justice?
If we're to talk about the spectrum of racism, where does this proudly-avowed strategy fall? Considering the documented, data-driven results of dual-standards Affirmative Action in our institutions, is Biden's selection strategy patently racist? Is Affirmative Action patently racist all by itself? Maybe we should critique the system as a whole, rather than the commenters observing the system at work.
I thought it was sexist too, since she presents as a woman. No one asked for ACB’s LSAT score.
Oh and transphobic I’m sure too. I mean he said “she” and how do we know KBJ’s pronouns or how KBJ identifies?
Personally I’m just not a fan of Three Namers. Can’t articulate why, just never liked that and there does seem to be an attitude about it (in my experience).
The LSAT scores are only one consideration.
The public must be provided also with all her tax filings for the past ten years.
This post is inconsistent with the questions from many, including Prof. Althouse, of Harriet Miers' intellectual ability.
We are not allowed to talk about things like this.
Affirmative Action must not be questioned, ever.
It seems like some supporters of affirmative action want to claim affirmative action is a good thing, but that no one benefits from it, which is absurd
Personally, I support affirmative action, but I support it because people benefit from it and I want them to.
Don't @ me. I already changed my mind on this and I'm not going to change it back.
Your comments sure seem to concede that she is not one of the brightest lawyers in the country. So isn’t that concession racist? See, the racist thing can go both ways. I’m disgusted that you even bring up racism. Biden already made too much of her being an affirmative action pick. Carlson seemed to be reacting to Biden’s propaganda on that point. I don’t see the racism in asking Biden and her supporters to back up their claim. I’m beginning to see a pattern in you, Althouse, as one of those people who see everything through the lense of race. I believe that is racism.
At one point many of us believed we were headed for a race-blind society, or at least we convinced ourselves that our goal looked like one. The narrative we grew up believing looked a lot like that. Things have changed.
We have been retrained to a more contemporary reality. This new reality is pretty ugly if you look at it from a certain standpoint. This is one aspect of it. It didn't have to be this way, but it is what it is. I don't pretend to hold any solutions at this point.
Actually, after Kagan and Sotomayor, and the distinct lack of astuteness and awareness they display, then perhaps we should see the LSAT scores of all the justices. Just how much affirmative action was necessary to get Jackson to a nomination for the USSC?
I don't know about everyone else, but while I disagreed with almost everything Ginsburg said or wrote, I never doubted her astuteness or awareness.
Since when are Supreme Court nominees chosen from "the top legal minds"?
The description from the Press of Brown Jackson (or just Jackson?) when the nomination was announced uniformly praised her brilliance. I don't think they were noting a reflection off a shiny forehead.
The LSAT question is dumb.
If Tucker wants to make a point about affirmative action in college or graduate school admissions, then make that point. We don’t know if KBJ was admitted to Harvard undergrad and/or law with the help of affirmative action. So can’t use her as an example one way or the other.
Clarence Thomas was repeatedly called a dope by the Left.
Thomas was Alpha Sigma Nu at The College of the Holy Cross. Holy Cross is a Jesuit college. Alpha Sigma Nu is the Jesuit equivalent of Phi Betta Kappa. Alpha Sigma Nu is not handed out willy-nilly and certainly not on the basis of race.
I bought my Alpha Sigma Nu key on Ebay.
Suppose that Tucker Carlson said that, from now on, all future nominees should provide their LSAT scores.
Then the requirement would not be racist, would it?
Now, it's "racist" only because this was the first time.
However, this was also the first time that only Black women were considered for nomination.
Our Hostess returns (did she ever leave?) to the Blue Pill. How's that "steak" tasting?
Wow
Worse than desantis dig at French
I find Ann’s argument unpersuasive. If law schools still use LSATs as a measure of aptitude then let us all see them.
The racism argument is played to death. If you wanted it to remain compelling you should have been critical of its overuse, especially by political grifters and opportunists.
You cried wolf one million too many times…
You don't have to be a genius to see that's racial.
Our hostess is pretty smart, but perhaps less genius is required and more common sense. It’s hardly racial to point to an odd name. Her parents made it racial by asking for a list of African names from which to choose. There are plenty of unusual names out there that nobody can immediately pronounce. Try Aoibhinn or Dearbhla on for size. Would it be racial to mention difficulty pronouncing an Irish girl’s name? I still don’t know how to pronounce Buttagieg. And him being a gay fella and all, would it be homophobic to stall on the butt part as I figure out the rest?
Is it anywhere on the race continuum to hold congressional hearings on high school drinking parties among the East Coast Elite? Or would it only be racial if that party were at a trap house rather than simply a house?
Seriously, the race preoccupation is like being forced to eat a turd sandwich. It is unappetizing, and you how the product was dispensed.
- Krumhorn
(my preferred adjectives: brilliant/awesome)
"You don't have to be a genius to see that's racial." So, Prof. A: nice trolling there.
If Tucker's remark is racial, it's only because he is obediently adopting the racial framing of Ketanji's sponsors. We are told she is one of the great legal minds of our day (of all colors, classes, genders, and sexual leanings; also shoe size and athletic skill). But we are also told that she was chosen by first ignoring at least 93% of all legal minds, great or small, who are not black women.
It may well be that her LSAT, and any other metric, will predict her to be a great legal mind. But we aren't shown that. That's somehow irrelevant. Instead, we're supposed to take it on faith --from the people who made a point of eliminating 93% of the competition-- that she is indeed a great legal mind.
Tucker is just implicitly reminding us all how very rigged the game is; how much the point here is exactly and only race and sex.
Your academic record does not reflect your wisdom or intelligence. But the other eight justices have stellar academic records. So should Ms. Jackson. That's fair.
Carlson's statements were blunt and incendiary -- no one talks like this unless they know something. So what is it about Ms. Jackson's LSAT scores and academic record that angered Carlson?
We know that Jackson graduated "cum laude" from Harvard Law School. But so did 80% of the class. There is plenty of room in that 80% for losers. So was Ms. Jackson a mediocre student? You can't be White or Asian and mediocre and expect a shot at the Supreme Court.
"By the way, never trust the English newspapers' takes on US politics."
And, never trust the mainstream American newspapers' (and broadcast news) takes on US politics.
It was Biden who proposed she's one of the best legal minds in the country after only having written one opinion in the DC circuit court and that a few days before her nomination. Carlson is just asking for some empirical measure of how that's defined. Given another affirmative action SJ choice who was touted as being "wise" can't pass a 4th grade science test, asking for some indication a nominee is above average intelligence isn't racist. Biden made his appointment an affirmative action nomination so this whole thing is racist right from the start. Just as it diminishes all women when only women are considered for a position unless it's towel person inside a ladies' locker room, Biden diminished his candidate without any help from Tucker Carlson. Biden should graciously withdraw her nomination, let her establish some credentials, and then include her in a wide open group another time, and let her be the best possible choice from that field instead of the best African-American woman from a rather small group. In long run it would be better for all of us, but especially for her.
This is an opportunity for the nominee to put to rest the concern that she lacks intellectual distinction. That will put Carlson in his place. We know that Ivy League admissions offices are discerning gatekeepers of Elite World.
You're joking, right?
". . . so why bring this up in the middle of demanding evidence of her basic intelligence? You don't have to be a genius to see that's racial"
AA, are you deliberately overlooking who put Affirmative Action into the whole equation? What Carlson is inartfully trying to do here comes with the territory of AA. A live by the sword die by the sword sort of thing. Are we, is the Court, really getting the best? Is Brown-Jackson really wicked-smart, best of the crop who just happens to be black? These are not racist questions.
If you think Carlson's probing of her intellect is racist (patently or otherwise), then I would expect that you will admit that AA is outrageously racist.
And, by the way, I believe that the 9 biggest brains — whoever you are out there, Big Brains! — would refuse to take the job. Too boring. Too restricted. No freedom to rove all over the intellectual landscape.
What, you mean it wouldn't be an "intellectual feast?" Haha
My own view is that the biggest brains wouldn't be in the legal profession to start with. That's my prejudice against my profession, but also, when there's drops in law school applications, don't high LSAT applications drop quicker than low LSAT applications? Similarly, when there's increases, the increase is most pronouced among high scorers:
Reuters reports on the “eye-popping increases” reported by the schools, which it attributes partly to a surge of nearly 13% in law school applicants and a boost in high LSAT scores throughout the nation. The number of people with top LSAT scores of 175 to 180 more than doubled in the last admissions cycle.
Only one data point, but I recall something similar happened around the Lehman shock too.
What I take from that is that the big brains are the quickest to drop law for something else when there are alternatives. When there aren't, they default to law as a backup. So you shouldn't expect to see our greatest minds practicing law in the first place.
I'm more concerned about all the people she drugged and raped as a high schooler.
Leftist media calls republican/conservative a racist. Or dog bites man. News at 11.
The Democrats and the Regime media try to destroy EVERY conservative who gets nominated to the SCOTUS. This has been going on since Bork. No one was smarter or more qualified that Bork. But he was destroyed. And that was almost 35 years ago.
So, Conservatives are giving the liberals a taste of their own medicine? Good. The only way to get the Leftists to act like decent human beings is to RETALIATE. Once they start feeling pain, once they have to take it, instead of always dishing it out - maybe they'll change.
Re: Spiros:
Your academic record does not reflect your wisdom or intelligence. But the other eight justices have stellar academic records.
Come on, even if she were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.
I remember when both the Left and the Right questioned the intellects of AlGore and W by looking into their (unimpressive) grades at Yale. So it's hardly new or racist to ask the same about a SCOTUS nominee, particularly when Biden himself promised out loud to make an affirmative action pick.
okay, a serious (rhetorical) question
If (IF!) gilbar was nominated to the Supreme Court,
would we All Agree; that his previous criminal convictions, and Jail time was relevant?
What about his numerous expulsions and his Complete lack of legal training?
Now, rethink that thinking, while thinking that gilbar was a person of color
NOW, it's not just irrelevant; but Extremely RACIST!.. right? i mean, right?
I reject the premise that simply using her full name is racist. She is not well known enough (yet) to simply rely on “Jackson” or “Brown Jackson“ in a news story. Justice nominees are often referred to as “wise” and “smart” so obviously discussing intellect is not and cannot be racist, unless one is using the r word to stifle debate, as appears to be the case here. My understanding of the context is that unlike previous nominees there has been an effort to conceal Jackson‘s academic records. IDK if that’s true or if no other nominees had their records debated. For people who rely on credentials so much Progressives sure are touchy about when where and whom is being examined suddenly.
Has she ever rented a porn video? Does she sexually harass her staff? Why is she married to a white guy? (Are these questions asked of Thomas allowed?)
I disagree. No one shouted “racism” when Bush II, Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore and Obama were asked about their academic records. Perhaps Jackson might respond, “I will if the other eight do.” Look what they asked of Kavanaugh in pursuit of racism.
I don't know about "patently," but it is racist. I considered saying "insidiously racist," but, on reflection, I'll say it's somewhere on the insidiously-to-patently continuum.
The whole process is racist now.
Joe Biden explicitly made this process racist.
Now anything anyone says about this nomination is racist. It is inescapable.
Ann stumbles on this point in her usually obtuse way. Ann lives in a bubble. Jackson was explicitly chosen because of her race and sex. Now there is no choice for any of us. We cannot discuss this nomination in any way without being racist.
The whole point of this process is to divide the country.
That is what he democrat party has always been about.
Look, we didn't make the rules of this game. That was... well it was Joe Biden, actually! Ironically, he painted Bork as *too smart* for the Supreme Court. But ever since, Democrats have engaged in this petty dumpster diving of nominees. Well we can play that game too. And especially given the clear intellectual deficiencies of our other great affirmative action hire on the court, Sotomayor, it behooves us to know whether Ms Ketanji actually got into law school under her own merits. That may be raycist to some, but if you select a nominee on race, it's entirely pertinent to contest it on race. Again, we didn't make these rules!
"And saying that Biden had a hard time pronouncing her name isn't racist. It's not a dig against her name. It's a dig against Biden."
Don't be willfully naive. It's Carlson's dog-whistle to his receptive audience that she isn't a "normal" or "true American." How could she be? Her name is "foreign" sounding and "hard" (sic) to pronounce.
Look at all the dead-stupid creeps who were convinced (and may still believe) Barack Obama was a Muslim. The only reason to highlight the difference, however superficial, is to make bigoted American morons hostile to "unAmerican" and "alien" persons rising to positions of power and influence in the government.
And yet law schools seem to care what the LSAT score was...
It matters some, though as you note it is not the overriding factor in judicial excellence. The issue arises because that was inevitable as soon as you have Affirmative Action, you know for a certainty that some people got in on the sliding scale, and you want to know what that means in this specific case. I went through a lengthy analysis to show it was unlikely that Obama's SAT Math scores were even above-average (though his verbal was likely very good). Not that SAT scores are a great predictor of presidential ability, but they are a good proxy for an IQ score, and it would be good to know. LSAT's are a proxy for the verbal portion of IQ scores. It would be good to know. We knew Bush's SAT's, Gore's IQ, Hillary's NMSQT's - because those were all pretty good scores. When we aren't told, we grow suspicious.
The question comes up because there are legitimate suspicions about that side of her abilities. To say that we weight our evaluation too strongly by that measure is an entirely legitimate argument, and one that I agree with. The other qualities you mention are ultimately more important. But that only appears racist because academia has not only embraced Affirmative Action - which is fine - but then denied that anyone admitted under those criteria was actually admitted under those criteria. We are now supposed to believe a lie. Academia stuck out it's jaw and said "hit me," and is now whining when Tucker Carlson did exactly that. You can't have this both ways, counselor.
I don't know...
It seems to me if someone accusers others of racism when skin color is not mentioned or eluded to, they're usually the racist.
When all you see is race, race is all there is
Biden says he only wants someone with black skin for the job, Tucker is a racist.
Biden brought this on himself. Why is he not called a racist? Jackson was an explicit affirmative action hire, and that will affect people's perceptions, even if she is qualified.
And if Trump had nominated a black woman (like Judge Janice Rogers Brown) instead of Amy Barrett, how would she have been treated? What comments would have been allowed about her intelligence? Not just her LSAT score, but her yearbooks would have been fair game. Also, the press would have found controversial, out of context quotes from her opinions and beat her over the head with them. "Some legal experts are concerned..." Why isn't that happening with Jackson? (Rhetorical question.)
As far as intelligence goes, certainly Scalia was a 100 watt bulb on a 40 watt court. He managed to be creative and entertaining ("I vigorously dissent!") while displaying intellectual firepower. I believe Bork was in that category, and it is a tragedy he was not confirmed. Instead we get liberals in conservative clothing like Souter and dimbulb mediocrities like the wise Latina. Yes, I want a court with more intellectual sophistication and depth.
Biden brought this on himself. Why is he not called a racist? Jackson was an explicit affirmative action hire, and that will affect people's perceptions, even if she is qualified.
And if Trump had nominated a black woman (like Judge Janice Rogers Brown) instead of Amy Barrett, how would she have been treated? What comments would have been allowed about her intelligence? Not just her LSAT score, but her yearbooks would have been fair game. Also, the press would have found controversial, out of context quotes from her opinions and beat her over the head with them. "Some legal experts are concerned..." Why isn't that happening with Jackson? (Rhetorical question.)
As far as intelligence goes, certainly Scalia was a 100 watt bulb on a 40 watt court. He managed to be creative and entertaining ("I vigorously dissent!") while displaying intellectual firepower. I believe Bork was in that category, and it is a tragedy he was not confirmed. Instead we get liberals in conservative clothing like Souter and dimbulb mediocrities like the wise Latina. Yes, I want a court with more intellectual sophistication and depth.
2007- My name is Barack Hussein Obama.
2008-Calling me Barack Hussein Obama is racist.
I only asked for an example of her brilliance, the assumption otherwise being that she's a typical affirmative action hire. That's just playing the overwhelming odds.
Narayanan said...
Wow
Worse than desantis dig at French
You cannot apply past occurrences to the results of those occurrences.
You cannot make anyone responsible for their decisions.
If you do that you eventually get to Ann repeatedly voting for rapists and other corrupt shitheads.
Ann's entire political paradigm is to avoid any responsibility for the actions of our government or her support of it and our current circumstances.
And yet law schools seem to care what the LSAT score was...
Only for whites and Asians. New rules.
LSAT score? Good Lord man it's race and gender that are pertinent here!
And this nominee's race and gender are CORRECT!
We will not stand for Thomas or Kavanaugh level scrutiny you racists! (Clarence Thomas is BLACK but alas not female so racism at his hearing DOES NOT APPLY )
Carlson is not a racist. But I think he speaks the unspoken questions about affirmative action. My take on it is that it is a slam on affirmative action acceptance into all, including elite, universities. She's another Harvard grad. Was he wanting to see if her LSATs met Harvard's actual admission standards, or some other unwritten standard which adds on dozens/hundreds(?) of points for one's skin color, and deletes points for other skin colors or eye-shape. This is not a falsehood, it is reality. And it would be interesting to see. Also- it is not racist to point out that racist policies are used in our universities.
That said, it does not mean the person admitted is not entirely brilliant. By itself, it is not a gauge of intelligence. Remember, we were also never allowed to see Barack Obama's college grades, or see anything he had written while head of the Harvard Law Review (he never published while in that position). We were told to just accept that Barack was the most intelligent man ever to grace the White House.
And there's this: How many years have we had to listen to Conservatives get called stupid and dumb, and clearly not as brilliant as Leftists simply because Conservatives hold other beliefs, arrive at other conclusions? How many slurs have been fired at Justice Clarence Thomas over his career? And I mean ugly, racist, bullshit slurs. Just to name one.
Methinks the shock of it is a bit of false theater. It is right out of the Left's playbook for as long as I've been alive. It's always such a breathless moment when the right uses the left's playbook.
"Since when are Supreme Court nominees chosen from "the top legal minds"?"
Hey Althouse, Tucker is raising this issue because that's exactly how Joe Biden described her. That why he followed with "so it might be time for Joe Biden to let us know what Ketanji Brown Jackson's LSAT score was."
Simple as that. But let's go with racist.
Be better.
Look at all the dead-stupid creeps who were convinced (and may still believe) Barack Obama was a Muslim.
Gee. I thought he went to Muslim services and a Muslim school in Indonesia. I guess that doesn't qualify anymore. Maybe you mean he was an apostate.
"It's Carlson's dog-whistle to his receptive audience that she isn't a "normal" or "true American." How could she be? Her name is "foreign" sounding and "hard" (sic) to pronounce."
You heard the whistle, Cook, you must be the dog.
"It seems to me if someone accusers others of racism when skin color is not mentioned or eluded to, they're usually the racist."
Ah! But Carlson is bringing up/eluding to her skin color. Obliquely, but loudly and clearly.
Among the practical realities is wanting to understand why the fence is there before you tear it down. Applies to the constitution too.
That's not typically an affirmative-action-hire skill.
If you want to know who rules over you, it is the person whose LSAT score must not be questioned. Real Total Power is locking in 5 Supreme Court votes that owe their appointment to the Prog Mafia. Corollary: questioning a Prog in power is an insurrection.
"What, you mean it wouldn't be an "intellectual feast?" Haha"
It would be an intellectual Applebee's.
Robert Cook said...
"And saying that Biden had a hard time pronouncing her name isn't racist. It's not a dig against her name. It's a dig against Biden."
Don't be willfully naive. It's Carlson's dog-whistle to his receptive audience that she isn't a "normal" or "true American." How could she be? Her name is "foreign" sounding and "hard" (sic) to pronounce.
You cannot deal with any of this honestly so you call your opponents racist. Standard tactic for a failed leftist.
It is pathetic. You just cannot deal with the fact that Joe Biden made this whole process specifically racist.
Look at all the dead-stupid creeps who were convinced (and may still believe) Barack Obama was a Muslim. The only reason to highlight the difference, however superficial, is to make bigoted American morons hostile to "unAmerican" and "alien" persons rising to positions of power and influence in the government.
Obama wasn't muslim. He clearly saw himself above all religions.
He was unamerican just like you are. Neither of you believe in freedom or individual rights.
You cannot argue against individual freedom without looking like the fascist shithead you are.
So you accuse us of racism.
There is a reason you support the most vile and murderous ideology ever devised by humans and there is a reason you default to calling your enemies racists.
It is because you are a terrible person. You want to call us racists go for it. We see who you are and what you are.
I’m sure Joe Biden knows her LSAT score.
>Ann Althouse said...
As for "top legal minds"? Since when are Supreme Court nominees chosen from "the top legal minds"? I've never noticed that, and I've been watching the American legal scene for 40 years.<
That's an Appeal to Authority fallacy argument and as such is patently ignorable. SC nominees have long been widely known to be chosen from the finest legal minds, and generally have been.
>It's very easy to say "Brown" and "Jackson," so he's just calling attention to Ketanji. What her parents named her has nothing to do with the nominee's qualifications, so why bring this up in the middle of demanding evidence of her basic intelligence? You don't have to be a genius to see that's racial.<
He said *her name* - just as the President tries to say it - so that is "racial"? You are quite desperate for a little racism hit this morning.
>I don't know about "patently," but it is racist.<
Tucker's question is a very reasonable one, given that Biden's prime criterion for selection for this SC seat was "Black woman."
Blacks' rising to academics-based high position are quite naturally presumed to be less-qualified affirmative action hires. Look at the easily found stats that show their general lesser qualifications for entry into academia and their generally lesser academic accomplishments on graduation. Not all of them, of course. Some of them are just as qualified and just as accomplished as the next guy. And those get unjustly denigrated because of the farce of affirmative action. It's not a new concept that that is the tragedy of affirmative action. And your type did that to them - not Tucker's type.
Robert Cook said...
"It seems to me if someone accusers others of racism when skin color is not mentioned or eluded to, they're usually the racist."
Ah! But Carlson is bringing up/eluding to her skin color. Obliquely, but loudly and clearly.
This is the trick.
If you question anything about the explicit racism of Biden and Cook then Cook gets to call you a racist.
And Ann is playing right into this.
It is disgusting and fucked up.
You are being terrible people.
“No matter what your ideology, we all know one of the most serious constitutional responsibilities a president has is nominating someone to serve on the United States Supreme Court,” Biden said. “As I did four days ago, I nominated Circuit Court of Appeals Ketanji Brown Jackson. One of our nation’s top legal minds, who will continue Justice Breyer’s legacy of excellence.”
Miami Herald - SOTU 3/1/22
I think it is racist to say he is being racist. Isn't it only because he is white that it isn't okay for him to ask the question? I don't think it is a good question either, but that is besides the point.
“No matter what your ideology, we all know one of the most serious constitutional responsibilities a president has is nominating someone to serve on the United States Supreme Court,” Biden said. “As I did four days ago, I nominated Circuit Court of Appeals Ketanji Brown Jackson. One of our nation’s top legal minds, who will continue Justice Breyer’s legacy of excellence.”
Miami Herald - SOTU 3/1/22
Wasn't Tucker riffing on Biden bumbling the pronunciation of her name? And wasn't he also commenting on Biden calling her one of the top legal minds in the entire country? Ascribing his comments to racism is a stretch.
Dang it Cook, I really agreed with your retort about trusting media. But this: Look at all the dead-stupid creeps who were convinced (and may still believe) Barack Obama was a Muslim.
Barack himself liked to stoke this fire, saying things like the Islamic call to prayer is “the most beautiful sound in the world” and declaring that those who “slander the Prophet” (we all know who that refers to) are on “the wrong side of history.” And Cook conveniently overlooked the Muslim tradition that children of believers are “born Muslim,” and he was partially raised by his Muslim father. Obama exploited the ambiguity masterfully.
They ask nominees about their position on a lot of hot button topics. Most notably abortion. Could the LSAT question come down to whether or not she benefited from a policy that excludes others and could she, if confirmed, rule impartially on the policy in the future.
I’m not saying I agree with that but I think a lot of the confirmation process is ridiculous.
For those keeping score at home:
Asking for George Bush’s Yale GPA: Not racist.
Asking for Donald Trump’s tax returns: Not racist.
Asking for Obama’s Birth certificate: Racist.
Asking for Justice Jackson’s LSAT score: Racist.
White House asking for Justice Jackson’s LSAT score in its evaluation paperwork: Not racist. Part of normal background check.
"Racist blah blah blah...."
Everything is racist. Even Althouse's blog posts are racist. So she has no standing to judge the kettle for being black.
And really, who gives a flying f**k about the opinions of Harvard grads? They're racist too, just for going to Harvard.
Ah! But Carlson is bringing up/eluding to her skin color. Obliquely, but loudly and clearly.
Wasn't her skin color Brought up/alluded to by Biden when he promised to nominate a Black woman? Aren't your attacks a way of eluding this truth?
On the bright side, Tucker Carlson appears to have resolved to stop fellating Vladimir Putin quite so frequently.
Blogger rhhardin said...
I only asked for an example of her brilliance, the assumption otherwise being that she's a typical affirmative action hire. That's just playing the overwhelming odds.
All supreme court nominees are political hacks: not just not brilliant but anti-brilliant. You obviously don't understand the system of mediocrity supports the partisan political structure of the courts. None of these people are bold out of the box thinkers. Of course, they are all smart, clever academics who are good people managers. Like Kurtz said: they "are errand boys sent by grocery clerks to collect a bill"
I think perhaps we should not call you people racist, but Afro-Phobic.
We want focus on texts, adherence to precedent, grounding in practical reality.
This is a very telling statement.
It is entirely dishonest and the fact nobody believes any of it particularly you makes it farcical.
It would be an intellectual Applebee's.
And only low class people like Deplorables and bitter clingers would stoop to go to an Applebees.
"We will not stand for Thomas or Kavanaugh level scrutiny you racists! (Clarence Thomas is BLACK but alas not female so racism at his hearing DOES NOT APPLY )"
It doesn't apply because Clarence Thomas is a conservative/Republican.
Pretty sure she groped me in a DC elevator. Can’t remember the year or the building but it was an Otis.
"When your name is Barack Obama, it's always tight."
What a racist.
Hmm... so it might be time for Ann to let us know what her own LSAT score was.
The LSAT is only relevant for admission to law school because there is a correlation between your score and what your law school grades will be. Once in law school it's your grades that matter for getting work, no one cares about the LSAT. After a few years of legal practice it's your work that matters and not what your law school grades were.
The proper way to judge Judge Brown Jackson would be to look at the quality of her judicial opinions, her judicial philosophy and her judicial temperament. Biden's praise for her is the typical boiler plate hyperbole that all presidents engage in. Hasn't Trump been known to lavishly praise a nominee and then later call that same person an idiot when he doesn't like their performance or disagrees with them?
If there was no Affirmative Action for the past 50+ years, there were be no point in questioning one's LSAT, GRE, ACT or SAT score. However, most of us have been in college and grad school classes with people were were not intellectually qualified to do the work.
AA hurts smart, hard working Black students. I was given that red pill in the mid-1970's by my former (Black) BIL who went to a Top Five Law School after graduating from an Ivy and having extremely high LSATs. His first year was miserable because other students assumed he was an AA admission. They learned that he was more than their intellectual equal, but the experience really bothered him.
Obama did not attend a Muslim school in Indonesia. 3 years at a Catholic school, although he was not Catholic, then, following a move, a year at a public school (founded as a Dutch school for colonists). His Muslim step-dad did take him to services on occasion. But Obama is a good example of the double standard.
Stipulation: She's not going to be anything other than a reliable Sotomayor ally.
But that particular call of Carlson's is yet more evidence that he's turning into what he probably always was: Father Coughlin. Watching his show, which I like to do to track his descent into Howard Beale-Lonesome Rhodes madness, is like a time machine to 1930s America Firster media.
The only thing missing from his nightly Dearborn Independent dispatches are anti-Jew rantings, though you can tell from what he does and doesn't cover that he's dying to blurt them out.
This post is satire, right? Everything is racist, so asking how a Supreme Court nominee scored on an exam that virtually every law school attendee of her generation was required to take must be racist. Right?
The LSAT is the final objective measure of the qualifications of a future lawyer/jurist. Got into Harvard? Graduated? Got a great job? Clerked for somebody on an important court? Got nominated for a judgeship? Got confirmed? All of those come with zero assurances that the person can think their way through the breakfast menu at Denny's.
And by the way it's not simply a matter of race. It's also connections - back when we could talk about such things, nepotism was criticized as a practice that results in people in positions for which they are completely unsuited, perhaps dangerously so. But now, the stakes are too high for us to think critically.
So if Tucker's comment is racist, what's the "ism" that describes Biden's claim of "she's among the tops in her profession because I named her to a high position last year"?
Any questioning of her in any way will be racist.
"This post is inconsistent with the questions from many, including Prof. Althouse, of Harriet Miers' intellectual ability."
Back that up with something I actually said. It's easy to search my archive for a specific name like that.
But Miers lacked standard credentials AND she was failing the in-person interviews with Senators. She wasn't able to speak in the present with a basic level of competence about constitutional law, and she was for that reason withdrawn. There's nothing like that in the case of Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Jackson is at least in the large pool of people with basic competence and standard credentials. If you were in that pool but not black and female, you got dumped from the pool.
It perplexes me the way the term "racism" gets used, here and almost everywhere else. Is it not possible to make the critical points about Tucker Carlson's comments without dragging this into it? Was there some racial angle on his harping on her name? Maybe. People notice those sorts of things about racial and ethnic groups all the time. Larry David's Jewfro was front and center here a few days ago. Does it make me racist to note that and laugh about it? (I used to have one myself, which nature has reduced to near nothing now sad to say.) Do those sorts of observations constitute "racism"? Not the way the term was defined once when the real civil rights struggles were taking place, the ones I was brought up on.
Temujin also sums much of this up well.
I will only point out that going after Carlson's focus on the LSAT is ironic given this woman's Harvard background in particular. That is, considering the affirmative action case Asian Americans are bringing there. Ironic in that you could say all those unadmitted Asian applicants were racist for pointing out how their SATs were on average far higher than those of Harvard's affirmative action admittees. The assault now on measures of achievement like SATs, LSATs, GPAs, etc., makes it understandable (to me anyway) that Carlson might wonder about how she stacks up on that criterion. Sure, the LSAT doesn't tell you all that much, though the law schools seem to think it does. Having attention called to this is unfortunately an inevitable price the beneficiaries of affirmative action pay.
Poor ol' Bork didn't know what hit him. He thought the Senate D's were still operating under the old rules. Y'know the Presidents get his nominees unless they're unqualified or ethically challenged. He didn't understand the D's were out to destroy him.
I support the President's appointment power. He got elected, and he has the choice. To reject the choice, you need something more than just the idea that there were better people and they were not picked or that he limited the choice to a type of person. That's his prerogative.
I’m reminded of the old saw that A students become law professors, B students become judges and C students become millionaires.
Amy Wax is pretty practical.
Reading the comments, you can see why the Left AlWAYS wins. You'd think after 1 million bad faith accusations of "racism" people would smarten up. But nope. Saying "So and So isn't racist" and giving the Democrats or Leftists your 12 page memo suporting that gets you NOWHERE.
"Too boring. Too restricted. No freedom to rove all over the intellectual landscape."
But then there is (was) Richard Posner.
I support the President's appointment power. He got elected, and he has the choice.... That's his prerogative.
Unless of course, he's a Republican. Then it's fair game to make up shit and drag the nominee through the mud.
wendybar: Get out of my mind!
What a load. It’s only racist if it’s a democrat. Spare me.
The first person who brought race into the Supreme Court nominee conversation, was Joe Biden. He made a campaign promise, to Jim Clyburn (black) in order to secure the primary in South Carolina. He vowed that he would nominate the first BLACK woman to the Supreme Court….AA or racist… you decide. But no whites people need apply or would be considered. So, who’s the racist.
If Tucker wants to see Katanje’s LSAT scores or even SAT scores, he has a point. Was she qualified to be accepted to Harvard or Harvard Law? Or was she an AA student? if she wasn’t a black female would she have been accepted? Today, that is a fair question in my mind. Remember, the democrats brought this on themselves. Every black person in college or graduate school or profession has to bear the burden that he/she could be considered an AA choice. This AA has backfired on the democrats and on the Black population
Looking at Katanje’s background..her father is a black lawyer working for the public school system in Miami. Check that big box as a YES in favor of her. And, Biden had to mention that her parents attended HBCU. Is that a qualification for the Supreme Court? Race is the main factor in this Supreme Court nomination due to Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.
BTW, we heard all about GWB’s mediocre grades at Yale, casting him as a stupid white frat boy. Then we heard about Gore’s grades which were not better. BUT, Obama’s grades are under lock and key. No one will ever see his records. This makes me highly suspicious that there is something to HIDE. If he had a high GPA or something to be proud of it would have been all over the NYT. Remember, he is black (or bi-racial) and another AA college student, law student and president. Unless, you can prove otherwise that he deserved any of the above based on his intelligence or accomplishments, I will still believe Obama was an AA choice.
Just to defend Biden. Brown is on the Appeals court. She's a judge and many people think she's qualified to sit on the Court. Miers had only one qualification - she was George Bush's friend That's it. Bush had set up a committe headed by Cheney to interview justices and recommend someone. The committe recommended ALioto. Bush then decided on his own to nominate his crony.
Miers had never been a judge, and there were 100 other people who were more qualified and had more knowledge of constitutional law. She was also a blank slate and former Democrat. She was in fact another Souter. Bush made one of the worst picks in Presidental history. You have to go back to LBJ putting his lawyer on the court for one equally bad. Miers was eventually defeated but Republicans should have vetoed her from the very start.
"'I support the President's appointment power. He got elected, and he has the choice. To reject the choice, you need something more than just the idea that there were better people and they were not picked or that he limited the choice to a type of person. That's his prerogative."
Yeah, but this President didn't really get elected, no.
The president can choose who ever he wants. But as we have seen ( except republicans have not caught on yet ) the Supreme Court is a partisan nominating affair. So she is a democrat, treat her like one and vote her down.
All of the hot air is typical partisan politics, because it is now a political position. Scorched earth politics has been used by the democrats since Bork. Time to get in the ring and do the same.
I would prefer that Tucker bring up actual issues wrt her judicial experience or relevant background. Bringing up LSAT seems like grasping at straws, to me, even though I understand why he’s doing it.
I’m fine with her nom, and want to see if she’s qualified the same way we test them all, through the hearings. Can she get through the grilling with sincere grace, and put non-prog minds at ease that she will apply the Constitution and the actual laws of the land, not some interpretation of them from some empathetic fantasy land?
Oh its the President's choice. Well that's nice - except that went out the window with Bork. And the attempted destruction of Thomas and Kavanaugh and the attempted filibuster of Alioto.
The only way the Democrats will go back to: "its the Presidents pick" is when their nominees get borked. Then they'll decide that the old norm should be restored.
Not a TYPE of person. But he limited his choice to a RACE. I believe to hire a person based on race and to not consider other nominees because of THEIR race. I.e. White, Asian, Arab, etc., is against Civil Rights Law. I’m not a Constitution lawyer or any kind of a lawyer but that’s my understanding of the law. Maybe, I’m wrong. But, even if I am wrong and Joe will ONLY consider a Black woman it seem wrong and pandering to the Black politicians and base who support him. And f***k off to the rest of the country.
That’s not unifying the country. He just alienated a good portion of the populace. What a stupid man!
The “elected President” you refer to is in the office due to the SCOTUS refusing to here all of the cases contesting the vote count fraud the in key states. That fake appointing Justices Sounds like a conflict of interest to me.
Biden should have nominated her but not after declaring a reduction in the talent pool. She will be forever tagged with the AA label.
While I agree it is Biden’s right to nominate I do not think it unthinkable to inquire further into her aptitude.
"I find Ann’s argument unpersuasive. If law schools still use LSATs as a measure of aptitude then let us all see them."
They're used because you've got applicants who are at a very early stage in their lives and there's not much to look at. If you could look into the future and know what they'd do with their law training, that information would be greatly preferable. The question is whether to pass this person through the entry gate into the training process.
For a judicial nominee, we do have that information on how they have put their legal training into action.
I don't know about "patently," but it is racist.
It's no more racist than reserving a Supreme Court seat for a black woman. Here's the test, suppose Biden had promised to reserve his first SC nomination for a white man?
A more important question, I think, should any nominee who has had a significant number of rulings overturned - regardless of name, ethnicity or gender - be placed on a court on which such decisions are final?
I support the President's appointment power. He got elected, and he has the choice.
Ah, but did he really get elected? Anyway, coming from someone who so readily fell for the bullshit lies of Christine Blasey Ford, your remarks read like special pleading for Democrat President.
Point of information, a US President did, in the past, nominate one of the best legal minds around for the Supreme Court. His name was Bork, and he was not confirmed. Why should we support the President’s choice just because it’s the President’s choice? I assume Althouse only expects her rule to be applied to mediocrities nominated by a Democrat.
As for the reputed “brilliance” of the much overrated Larry Tribe, based on his latest tweets I conclude that if he ever had a working brain, it was a long time ago.
Questioning the intelligence of a woman who was nominated based on race is racist?
Who cares if this questions was never asked? No SC justice before was ever selected based on race.
To me, the argument that questioning the intelligence of a black woman is racist contains the insidious racist idea that blacks are somehow less intelligent.
Tucker's idea might be stupid and likely is just to annoy, but it is not patently, quietly, [insert here your desired adverb], racist.
Joe, on the other hand, savaged Justice Thomas and stopped Judge Janice Rogers Brown from the Court by threatening a filibuster. That's real racism.
I don't know about "patently," but it is racist.
You're falling for their Overton window which decries any criticism of a left leaning minority as racism. He was insulting her, nothing more and nothing less.
Robert Cook said...
"It seems to me if someone accusers others of racism when skin color is not mentioned or eluded to, they're usually the racist."
Ah! But Carlson is bringing up/eluding to her skin color. Obliquely, but loudly and clearly.
****************
C'mon man, that's beyond obtuse. Biden **specifically** SAID he was going to appoint a black woman, and he did. Nothing oblique or "eluding" (sic) about that.
So why can't Carlson speak in the same terms?
Once Biden narrowed the pool of candidates so significantly, questions like this cease to be inherently racist.
"They're used because you've got applicants who are at a very early stage in their lives and there's not much to look at. If you could look into the future and know what they'd do with their law training, that information would be greatly preferable. The question is whether to pass this person through the entry gate into the training process.
For a judicial nominee, we do have that information on how they have put their legal training into action."
This is obviously true, but not relevant to the question of whether merely asking for LSAT scores is patently or insidiously racist. Recent supreme court nominees have been asked to release all sorts of data that doesn't seem particularly relevant to whether they will perform well as a supreme court justice.
Our host notes that Joe Biden got elected, and through his Presidential appointment power has the choice. And therein lies the problem. I'm one of a very large group of people who have looked at Joe Biden's decisions and actions since he was elected--and concluded that he really doesn't have the capability to make a wise or good choice. I doubt that he's in control of the vetting process for court nominees (or for that matter for much of anything in the range of his duties). And that's another problem. The Biden "posse" is particularly inept.
In less partisan times the Senate, through its advise and consent function, saved us from some bad choices made by various Presidents.
My all time favorite incident in the Supreme Court nomination process involved President Nixon's nomination of Clement Haynsworth Jr. Haynesworth was a Harvard law grad--class of 1936 who had returned to his native South Carolina and practiced law for 20 years or so before Eisenhower nominated him to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1957.
In 1969 Nixon nominated Haynsworth for an Associate Justice seat on the Supreme Court-which had become vacant when Abe Fortas resigned in disgrace. Haynsworth's nomination was challenged by critics who said he was "mediocre". Senator Roman Hruska rose to the challenge, saying on the Senate floor that Haynsworth might be mediocre but that there were a lot of mediocre people in the country. And the mediocre people deserved some representation on the Supreme Court.
Hruska was ahead of his time. But the wise Latina has since filled the slot Hruska described.
AA states, "...I support the President's appointment power. He got elected, and he has the choice. To reject the choice, you need something more than just the idea that there were better people and they were not picked or that he limited the choice to a type of person. That's his prerogative..."
I agree, Biden has the authority to appoint because he got elected. Beyond that AA you're wrong. What part of 'Advise and Consent' don't you understand. I don't need anything to "...reject Biden's choice..." other than it's a political appointment after all.
Smart move on Tucker's part. He wants people to forget his love affair with Putin.
The president's choice was to disqualify 93% of the country in his search for the best candidate. It's his prerogative, but it's an awfully stupid one. IT's possible to support theconstitionality of the process and still say it is awfully stupid.
I agree with Ann. LSATs tell you almost nothing about how good a lawyer or a judge is. When you hire a lawyer, do you ask him what his LSATs were? No one does that, not ever. It’s just not valuable information in deciding whom to hire. I don’t think law firms even ask law students applying for 1L jobs about their LSATs. Why bother when you can get their GPA? And when it comes to making lateral hires of associates, a lot of firms don’t even care at that point about GPA, they only look at the candidate’s track record as a lawyer in practice. Hiring a judge for a higher court is no different, especially where the candidate has a track record as a lower court judge that can be examined.
At some point in the 80s, Harper's did an article about the SATs. Back then, it wasn't unusual for the College Board to take admissions officers on various junkets ("seminars") to solidify their relationship with colleges. There has long been some doubt about the ultimate value of the tests, although they are what we have been using for some time.
The magazine had everyone on staff take the test to see how they would do. The worst score came from a guy who graduated at the top of his class at Cambridge. At the time that guy attended college, probably the 70s, the UK didn't use standardized testing as a measure, though they might now. Still, they had ways of recognizing academic achievement and moving kids into certain paths for learning. Who knows if they're better or worse than what we do here.
The SAT, LSAT, and other tests (schools in some parts of the country use the ACT) are meant to measure whether people are prepared for college, law school, and so on. They were not designed to measure intelligence, and the people who created them never claimed that as their purpose.
Carlson may not be racist, but the fact that he floats this idea to viewers who likely haven't even attended college (sorry, but check Fox's demographic) suggests he might not be as smart as he thinks. More important, the idea that I'm supposed to care about a score on a test taken roughly 30 years ago, as opposed to any accomplishments since then, is moronic.
There was the Nixon appointee (Haynesworth? Carswell?) who was attacked as a mediocrity, provoking Senator Roman Hruska to respond that mediocrities should also be represented on the High Court. There's also been talk about Thomas or Sotomayor being intellectually undistinguished. Tucker's attack was a little too snobbish, too cringingly reminiscent of high school, but not out of place.
Unmitigated diversity engendered by an ethical religion. #HateLovesAbortion
Is it racist to note that a common nickname for "Ketanji" is "Kitty"?
Prof A @ 10:27: "I support the President's appointment power. He got elected, and he has the choice. To reject the choice, you need something more than just the idea that there were better people and they were not picked or that he limited the choice to a type of person. That's his prerogative."
Of course it's his prerogative. But he wants to have it both ways: not just exercising his prerogative to pick whomever he wants, but to convince the public (and indirectly, through public pressure, the Senate) that the nominee should be confirmed. The former action he can do however he pleases, but it's kind of useless (and indeed can be counterproductive) if he can't sell his pick to the public and the Senate.
So he has a sales job to do, and it really does help if he maintains something like superficial consistency in the sales talk. On the one hand, she is one of the great legal minds of all time, fully worthy of the Senate's approval. On the other hand, 93% of the pool of other legal minds has been eliminated before we even start, because Black and Woman are the only criteria of merit.
He wants to say both things but they don't fit together; and he's just not a good enough bullshitter to get them to fit.
We aren't going to see anybody's LSAT scores unless there's an illegal leak, but in the context of today's political discourse I don't really see what's horribly objectionable in what Carlson. asked. Almost anything goes nowadays. I suppose the charge of racism against him goes as well.
Affirmative action provides advantages, but there's a price to be paid for that. Same thing with having a stepmother who's a frozen food heiress or going to an exclusive prep school. Either way people wonder if you got as far as you did on your own, and you have to prove you did. Don't take the political circus, and the pretend outrage, and the virtue signaling so seriously.
I don't think her name or some notion of foreignness is really an issue here. Her name says "African-American," not "foreign." This is about ideology and partisanship and everyone grabs hold of whatever weapons are at hand.
In other news, America's dumbest, most hysterical Democrats continue to demonstrate their unerring knack for reliably identifying 998,964 out of every five actual racists.
Ann Althouse said...I support the President's appointment power. He got elected, and he has the choice.
There are two ways to look at the advice and consent power. My view coincides with what you state here--the president's appointment power is one of the things voters look at when making their decision and, as such, the president's appointments should be presumed to have the support of the people. Presidents are entitled to their choices. The Senate's consent power is a backstop to prevent seriously dangerous people from getting in. It is a power that should be used carefully and sparingly.
But there is another way to look at it. I don't share this view, but it is legitimate: the advice and consent power is one of the things the public considers when voting for Senator, making the Senate's approval power co-equal to the president's appointment power. They have as much right as the president to accept or reject the person put before them.
Unfortunately, the Democrats have made judicial appointments a political football, where you vote no for the other side's nominees even when they are fully qualified (as Chuck Schumer openly did when he voted against Roberts despite admitting he had no actual objection). The Republicans, after being slapped around by the Democrats for a couple decades, decided to join in undermining the process. And here we are.
Merit, physiology (e.g. sex), etc.-based arguments are anti-diversitist in the modern model, and therefore socially unjust and progressive... one step forward, two steps backward. Speaking of merit, people of Asia (Russians et al excluded) recently won a case in court to recognize and reject affirmative discrimination under the Progressives Corporation's Pro-Choice "ethical" religion.
Biden presented this as an affirmative action nomination. It seems reasonable to see how far back the AA benefits go.
Biden was stupid and wrong to frame it the way he did but "stupid and wrong" describes a lot about this administration.
I don't know about "patently," but it is racist.
If so, it's only racist because affirmative action and Biden's appointment process are/were both blatantly racist.
Referring to racism isn't racist in itself.
"Gee. I thought he went to Muslim services and a Muslim school in Indonesia. I guess that doesn't qualify anymore. Maybe you mean he was an apostate."
Maybe what you thought is incorrect.
Blogger tim maguire said...
He isn't highlighting that she has a non-white name, he's highlighting that she has a foreign name.
--
Perhaps foreign in the sense that an unusual name among a leading mind would tend to be more familiar.
"I support the President's appointment power. He got elected, and he has the choice. To reject the choice, you need something more than just the idea that there were better people and they were not picked or that he limited the choice to a type of person. That's his prerogative."
That's not how this works at all. The president has the power to appoint, the Senate has the power to accept or reject, and every person on the planet has the power to say whether they agree with the choice or not, based on whatever criteria they choose to apply.
Ann Althouse said...
I support the President's appointment power. He got elected, and he has the choice. To reject the choice, you need something more than just the idea that there were better people and they were not picked or that he limited the choice to a type of person. That's his prerogative.
You also decided to believe that Kavanaugh was a rapist based on an obviously false story where the accuser couldn't even remember what year it happened.
You found Ford "credible."
Now you call everyone who objects to an obviously racist appointment racist.
At some point you will actually look at yourself and realize what you have become.
If possible to patent racism, the royalties would be awesome.
I don't know about "patently," but it is racist.
Nope.
Promising that he would only appoint a "Black female" was racist and sexist.
Demanding that this beneficiary of racism and sexism prove that she actually deserves the position is the opposite of being racist.
It's treating the beneficiary of racism "normally" that would be racist.
Racist and dishonest.
The fact that they're crying "racism", rather than giving us her scores, rather answers the question about how much of a "bright light" she really is.
Did she get into Harvard Law because she earned it? or because she's black. Sorry, "Black"
The same question holds for every single other one of he accomplishments.
If you don't like that, stop giving out benefits to people based on their sex and / or skin color.
What you can not reasonably do, and can not successfully do, is force us to pretend that the racism isn't there, and doesn't have an effect
What I have that is of utmost importance here is that Applebee's is pretty blah on the middle class full service dining scale. Now, at one time they had a good French Dip sandwich, and you could get a turkey and cheese variety and both were served on a croissant.
They also had this desert, amazing desert, truly one of the very best of deserts--I am not exaggerating about how fantastic this desert was. Really, you would have to try it to believe it.
The Maple Butter Blondie, served hot, on a hot skillet, with cold ice cream on top, and slathered with warm maple butter.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/509258670359530701/
Robert Cook said...
"Gee. I thought he went to Muslim services and a Muslim school in Indonesia. I guess that doesn't qualify anymore. Maybe you mean he was an apostate."
Maybe what you thought is incorrect.
1: You couldn't find anyone more honest than "FactCheck.org"?
2: What you quoted is entirely correct, according to your own source:
Obama also didn’t attend a radical “Wahabi” school in Indonesia, as a false viral email claimed. That rumor originated with an inaccurate 2007 Insight Magazine article that said Obama “was educated in a Madrassa as a young boy and has not been forthcoming about his Muslim heritage.” CNN interviewed the school’s deputy headmaster, Hardi Priyono, who said: “This is a public school. We don’t focus on religion.”
That's entirely different from it being a "Muslim school", and him attending "Muslim services" while he was in Indonesia.
Even Obama claims that he didn't convert to Christianity until he was in college.
So, now that Althouse has established conclusively that she doesn't watch Carlson's show, with this clunking nonsense:
"It's very easy to say "Brown" and "Jackson," so he's just calling attention to Ketanji. What her parents named her has nothing to do with the nominee's qualifications, so why bring this up in the middle of demanding evidence of her basic intelligence? You don't have to be a genius to see that's racial."
This is cacaphonously ignorant. Carlson has rather cringingly spent the last week or so butchering the crap out of "Ketanji", mostly pronouncing it "Kentaji" (which I've heard elsewhere btw so it's hardly some intentionally crypto-racist plot on his part). So his audience has been attuned to his problems with the name (and frankly, a bit surprised it took so long for someone to set him straight and/or for it to stick with him). When he came out this week pronouncing her name correctly, I'm pretty sure I'm not alone breathing a sigh of relief that he at last got it right.
His comment about problems pronouncing her name - which Biden has had on video in public - refers as much to his own days-long faux pas as to anyone else's. The only reason people like Althouse in the paragraph above jump on it as "evidence" of his racism is because they're ignorant and really don't know what they're talking about.
What a lame performance by the hostess. Take the L; you've earned it.
wendybar said...
Why?? If they can look into other nominees yearbooks, why SHOULDN'T we know what her LSAT score was?? This is their game, we are just playing it.
Not just "yearbooks, but "high school yearbooks".
If you can pester a Republican nominee about what he wrote in his high school yearbook, you can most certainly demand to know about the Democrat nominee's qualifications for law school, and what she did while she was there.
Look, if you want to "sell" her nomination with "no, she's not the academically brightest light, but she's a black females nd that's why she shoudl be confirmed", feel free to state that.
But if any of your list of her "qualifications" includes where she went to law school, what she did while she was there, or what she got because she went there, then the question of "how did she get there" is entirely appropriate.
The issue of the recent court nomination is purely circular. If the claim is that a black female must be selected then it is implied that there are too many white people on the court. This suggests a belief that we need to reduce the involvement of one race from the court, which is clearly racist. To solve racism we must act with racism. The only non racist approach is to select based on objective criteria, I guess Carlson is trying to make this point in a way that seems offensive but gets attention.
Asians are the ones to whom racism applies as there has never been an Asian on the court of either gender.
Greg Traitor,
I have no idea what you're on about. The site I linked to invalidates Michael K.'s apparent belief Obama was a Muslim at some time in his life. You can call the site "fake news," but back it up with documentation that shows FactCheck.org's information to be false, or you're just whistling in the wind.
At some point you will actually look at yourself and realize what you have become.
Actually, she probably won't. That's the beauty and pathology of being a Lefty.
"You found Ford 'credible.'"
Ford was credible.
“Wouldn't a score on the bar exam would be a better test of a "legal mind" than the LSAT entrance exam? “
Maybe if you just took the multiple guess part (MBE - Multistate Bar Exam). The essay portion is much more problematic. For one thing, grading is somewhat subjective. And what are you going about Water Rights questions on the WY bar exam. But I, and probably many more, never had our essay questions graded, because of our MBE scores were high enough. (That was for CO - 10 years later, when I took the bar exam for AZ, they didn’t have that fast track option).
“Rather, is Carlson questioning whether Brown's LSAT scores justified the admission of her "skull full of mush" to HLS, which in turn justifies her appointment to the Supreme Court?”
I will bet, based on average LSAT scores from entering 1Ls at HLS, for African Americans, that her scores were below several, at least, of the lawyers/law profs here. Probably way below. This is based on nothing more than statistics and probabilities, and, yes, indicia from her school years that she was one of the best of the best.
We are asked to believe that she is one of the best legal minds of her generation. But we are left with the testimony of a serial fabulist, and a degree from HLS, knowing that most HLS African Americans aren’t as smart as many of White and Asians denied admission. Why should we believe Biden in this case? We all know that he is suffering from serious dementia, had serious problems with the truth before that, and that he barely scraped through LS himself. So, with that background, Carlson’s question makes perfect sense: he is essentially asking for some sort of evidence beyond those two, very weak, indicia of her being a top legal mind.
This, BTW, is one of the problems with AA (no - not Ann Althouse, but Affirmative Action). Admission to HLS is supposed to be extraordinarily competitive, with only the very best and brightest getting admitted. And, it mostly is. But absent AA, there is a decided inequality of outcomes. Based on LSATs, class rank, almost no African Americans would ever be admitted, and not many more Hispanics. In order to approach equality of results, admission criteria are significantly reduced for preferred minorities. Instead of competing with White and non-preferred minorities, African Americans only compete with other African Americans for a predetermined slice of the admission pool. Then, if they survive to graduation (which is a different problem - called mismatch), we are supposed to treat them as equally as to the quality of graduates who were admitted competitively. That is what they are doing here - telling us that she must be a brilliant legal mind, because she is a HLS grad. Except that we all know that she almost assuredly wasn’t admitted competitively. And, of course, it isn’t just LS, but AA in general - one of the MDs here has indicated lack of faith in many African American physicians on the same grounds.
So what would be good objective non racist criteria to use for court selection? LSAT, Bar exam, LS GPA, rating of your school, rate of reversal on appeal, law review article impact rating? What would be ok to use? The answer is probably going to be nothing is good. So why try, we can’t be non racist.
Soon you may not be able to demand LSAT scores from lawyers. To increase the applicant pool law schools are experimenting with accepting the GRE in lieu of LSAT. Controversial, but I sense a trend.
What Carlson said is not necessarily a put-down of black intelligence. If the president had said he was limiting his choices to judges who are under 5 feet tall, wouldn't it be fair to ask whether his ensuing sub-5-foot-tall pick was, in fact, on par with the best of all other available picks, regardless of height? It has nothing to do with whether people under 5 feet tall are less intelligent; it's that you're drawing from a much smaller pool of talent.
Unfortunately, the concern in this case is arguably GREATER than in my example of a sub-5-foot nominee. If you're a 4-foot-something federal judge, it's unlikely that your height conferred any affirmative action benefit at any stage of your professional career. However, if you're a black, female federal judge, there is every likelihood that you benefitted from affirmative action in being admitted to a top-flight law school, getting a choice judicial clerkship, and/or getting on the federal bench. So it's not just a one-time "plus factor," but more like an express elevator to the top.
I think what Carlson is doing is simply refusing to accept the polite fiction that we can make appointments based on race, AND the people who are thus appointed are just as qualified as those who did not benefit from affirmative action. Calling Carlson racist is just a convenient way of sidestepping the actual effects of affirmative action.
“Did she get into Harvard Law because she earned it? or because she's black. Sorry, "Black"”
In my previous long diatribe, I was very careful to use “African American” instead of “Black”. That is because this is more an African American issue that a Black (racial) problem. People of African descent from other countries tend to be much more competitive, in terms of admissions qualifications.
Why isn't the Biden Administration dunking on Carlson? "Here's the LSAT score. And, oh by the way, she excelled in law school. Here's the proof." You can't just say "you're a rascist" and shut down the conversation.
I dont think the Administration can prove that Carlson is full of it. Something is wrong with the nominee and Carlson knows it. Carlson is a well connected journalist. He knows something.
Ann Althouse said...
"What, you mean it wouldn't be an "intellectual feast?" Haha"
It would be an intellectual Applebee's.
Over the course of 5 years they'll cover cases involving patent law, international relations, maritime law, bankruptcy law, criminal law, Federalism, and Constitutional law.
Which lawyers get a bigger feast?
Amexpat said...
The LSAT is only relevant for admission to law school because there is a correlation between your score and what your law school grades will be. Once in law school it's your grades that matter for getting work, no one cares about the LSAT.
Wrong. The LSAT is an objective measure. Your law school grades are not. Even your "class rank" as based on grades is still subject to any "affirmative action bonuses" you might have received.
LSAT scores let us answer the question "did she earn her way into Harvard, or was it a racist gift?"
And since the Kavanaugh nomination established that "anything, going all the way back to the nominee's high school years, is fair game", something from her junior / senior year in college is clearly fair game.
I realize that being a leftist requires one to suffer from the incredible stupidity of simply not being able to understand that your actions have consequences, but they do.
The Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh rules all apply
" We want focus on texts, adherence to precedent, grounding in practical reality"
"We" don't. Certainly the Dems don't.
"It's dumb to be an intelligence snob here"
Is it ever OK to be an intelligence snob, when doing so highlights racial inequality?
Readering said...
But Obama is a good example of the double standard.
You mean like the fact that we got Bush's and Gore's college grades, but we never got to see any college or law school grades, papers, or other work from "Constitutional Law professor" Obama?
That "double standard"?
I couldn't care less about her test scores. I do care about the decisions she has made on the courts she has been on and whether those decisions have been upheld or overturned at appellate levels. That would show whether or not she knows the law and applies it properly.
Sometimes people are so blinded by their own ideology that they act as if something that's been going on nearly forever is somehow new and grossly out of bounds. Appointee after appointee made by George W. Bush was filibustered, including Miguel Estrada for the Supreme Court and Janice Rogers Brown for the US Court of Appeals for the DC circuit. Go back in your time machine and read what was written and said about those appointees. And while you're defending Biden's right to appoint whoever the hell he wants, go back look and look at his long record in the senate as to how he has handled appointees made by the opposing party.
The problem is that Biden set the judge up as an affirmative action hire. Carlson is asking (in his own clumsy way) whether or not the judge's career was based on that from the very beginning. I'd like to think that ivy league level schools are tough to get into and even tougher to stay in, so a look at LSAT scores won't really tell you anything. Unfortunately, her selection was made on a racial and gender basis, so her nomination and confirmation will always be suspect.
"I think what Carlson is doing is simply refusing to accept the polite fiction that we can make appointments based on race...."
Then he should not be purposely trying to accentuate race to his audience by talking about her difficult-to-pronounce (i.e., "other" > "alien"> "black") first name.
There is no other reason to bring up her first name than race-signaling in questioning her qualifications or Biden's reasons for selecting her.
I have no problem with seeing her LSAT scores, but I don’t think they will tell us much. I also think that a rigorous graduate school program can improve the aptitude test scores of many students. I took the LSAT and the GRE’s and thought that the LSAT measures a much
narrower set of skills. Why not use the modern GRE’s for law school admissions, since it purports to measure verbal, rhetorical, and quantitative abilities? Does the legal profession not value mathematical abilities at all?
The real racists here are Biden and his cronies. Selecting the candidate solely on the basis of race and sex is patently racist and sexist to boot. The regime in all of its forms is incessantly calling white people racist just by their very existance, and CRT is all about portraying all whites as systemic racists. Of course, they argue that only white people can be racist. Now they tell us that all people who oppose CRT are racists and terrorists as well.
In past elections, college grades, test scores, and IQ’ s were fair game. The last Bush was savaged for his grades and scores, while Al Gore
actually had much weaker grades, etc. Tell me why Obama’s grades at all of his schools were permanently sealed. What were they hiding?
It turns out that his comprehension of many complex subjects was deficient. Affirmative action should a topic open to debate from all perspectives, but open debate is not on the left’s or the government media’s agenda and never will be.
Bruce Hayden @ 1:02: "...People of African descent from other countries tend to be much more competitive, in terms of admissions qualifications." And they aren't stupid: they try to differentiate themselves from "descendant of enslaved people" run-of-the-mill African-Americans. I am reading Isabel Wilkerson's (irritating) book, "Caste: The Origins Of Our Discontents" and she rants about how the lowest of the low in the American caste system are the descendants of enslaved people, not immigrants from the Caribbean or Africa --who, she says, work to preserve accents and other indicia that they should not be confused with the Untouchables.
I imagine that for schools and other gatekeepers of racial quotas, the Narrative gets awkward when the Ghanaians or Jamaicans walk off with all the prizes that "should" be going to domestic talent.
Ann Althouse said...
But Miers lacked standard credentials AND she was failing the in-person interviews with Senators. She wasn't able to speak in the present with a basic level of competence about constitutional law, and she was for that reason withdrawn. There's nothing like that in the case of Ketanji Brown Jackson.
How do you know?
Which Democrat Senators would say "I can't vote for Biden*'s affirmative action pick because she's an idiot"?
Since the answer is "none of them would say that, not even as an "anonymous source", you (and I) literally have no idea how those talks are actually going
Jackson is at least in the large pool of people with basic competence and standard credentials. If you were in that pool but not black and female, you got dumped from the pool.
And that is the racism of this situation.
Not TC asking for her LSAT scores
I support the President's appointment power. He got elected, and he has the choice. To reject the choice, you need something more than just the idea that there were better people and they were not picked
No, all we need is the fact that he's a Democrat.
That rule was established during the Bork hearings.
Having all the justification we need for opposing his pick, we now get to attack his pick on any legitimate front.
And "lacks adequate intellectual capacity to do the job well" (Sotomayor shows that a lack of intellectual capacity doesn't prevent you from doing the job) is a perfectly reasonable ground on which to attack.
The fact that the response is "that's racist", rather than "here's her scores, now suck on them, losers" tells us that her scores must not be that good.
"We actually prefer something more ordinary."
I have to question whether Althouse has spent enough of her adult life around genuinely dumb people (who are often perfectly wonderful human beings) to have an unbiased view of what constitutes "ordinary" intelligence.
You don't run into those folks at UM or NYU or UW Law or slupping around downtown Madison.
Clyde, you can Google her Senate questionnaire answer and get an extremely lengthy answer to your question.
The two things that struck me in skimming it (after checking that a case I was involved in was on her long list of opinion citations) was how few trials she presided over as a district judge, and how many extra-curricular things she participated in over her career. She certainly is comfortable with public speaking to groups. Should be fine with her third nomination trip to the Judiciary Committee. Also, although a big deal has been made over her background as a public defender, that was a position she held for only 2 years.
Blogger jim5301 said...
Smart move on Tucker's part. He wants people to forget his love affair with Putin.
It's interesting to see the people who got us into Vietnam, then regretted it and demonstrated against it, are so unhappy with someone who is trying to avoid much worse than Vietnam.
Try a rational thought once in a while. I know it is against the ideology you follow, but try.
Clyde said...
I couldn't care less about her test scores. I do care about the decisions she has made on the courts she has been on and whether those decisions have been upheld or overturned at appellate levels. That would show whether or not she knows the law and applies it properly.
One appellate decision. That's it. I don't care because she is replacing a radical lefty who always votes with the left.
As a chess player Tucker Carlson proves he’s pretty good at tic-tac-toe. If there’s going to be a new left-wing Supreme Court justice, it’s far more advantageous to the right that she be like Sotomayor and not Kagan, who has the intellectual chops to lure Roberts and Kavanaugh to her side.
Affirmative action should be applied on a case by case basis.
Bruce Hayden said...
“Did she get into Harvard Law because she earned it? or because she's black. Sorry, "Black"”
In my previous long diatribe, I was very careful to use “African American” instead of “Black”. That is because this is more an African American issue that a Black (racial) problem. People of African descent from other countries tend to be much more competitive, in terms of admissions qualifications.
So I've read.
But so far as I know, they still get the "affirmative action" benefit because they're "Black".
The difference between "African Americans" and "Blacks" may very well mean that there will be a higher percentage of "non-America Blacks" at any given high achievement level than "African America Blacks".
But a "non-America Black" at achievement level X is still more likely to get into an Affirmative Action school than a white or Asiam at that level
This whole controversy confuses me.
As I understand it, judges for higher courts are normally chosen from lower ones. If you're good at the judging game, you're considered for a higher court and eventually, the highest.
Other than the handful of times when I've been to actual courts because of a field trip or as a juror, the bulk of my court knowledge comes from movies and television shows. What I've learned is that almost all judges are black women and the vast majority of the rest are black men.
The fact that the Supreme Court isn't already a majority of black women is all the proof I need that racism is at play.
Robert Cook said...
Greg Traitor,
I have no idea what you're on about. The site I linked to invalidates Michael K.'s apparent belief Obama was a Muslim at some time in his life. You can call the site "fake news," but back it up with documentation that shows FactCheck.org's information to be false, or you're just whistling in the wind.
Mike said Obama attended "Muslim services". The site does not disprove that
Mike said Obama attended a "Muslim school". the site said Obama went to a "public school" in Indonesia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Indonesia
Indonesia is officially a republic with a compromise made between the ideas of a secular state and an Islamic state.[3] Indonesia has the world's largest Muslim population[4][5] and the first principle of Indonesia's philosophical foundation, Pancasila requires its citizens to "believe in the one and only God".[6] Consequently, atheists in Indonesia experience official discrimination in the context of registration of births and marriages and the issuance of identity cards.[7] In addition, Aceh officially enforces Sharia law and is notorious for its discriminatory practices towards religious and sexual minorities.
...
In the 2021 Indonesian governmental statistics, 86.93% of Indonesians identified themselves as Muslim (with Sunnis about 99%,[16] Shias about 1%[17] and Ahmadis 0.2%[7]), 7.4% Protestant Christian, 3.08% Catholic Christian, 1.71% Hindu, 0.74% Buddhist, 0.03% Confucians, 0.05%
He wasn't a Christian there, his step-father was Muslim, and it was against the law to be an atheist.
So you do the math, cookie.
But, then again, you wrote this:
[Christine Blasey] Ford was credible.
So your ability to connect with reality clearly sucks
No conservative Republican has ever thought twice, let alone criticize, the name "Condoleezza."
No conservative Republican has ever thought twice, let alone criticize, the name "Condoleezza."
Questioning a nominee's qualifications is racist but appointing her strictly based upon her race isn't.
Got it.
I support the President's appointment power. He got elected, and he has the choice. To reject the choice, you need something more than just the idea that there were better people and they were not picked or that he limited the choice to a type of person. That's his prerogative.
I agree completely. However, you left out the important word "Democrat" in front of President. Republican appointees are presumed to be either racist, stupid, extreme or rapists like Cook believes.
I used to respect your contrary opinions Cook, but if you found CBF credible, you are deaf, dumb and blind to common reason.
Ann Althouse said...
I support the President's appointment power. He got elected, and he has the choice. To reject the choice, you need something more than just the idea that there were better people and they were not picked or that he limited the choice to a type of person. That's his prerogative.
That’s just stupid. If that were true there’s no point to congressional approval. The system of checks and balances compels the executive to select candidates the current congress will approve.
Enough with the nonpartisan SCOTUS bullshit. That horse is out of the barn and gone forever. Stop it.
Moreover the judicial has shown time and again certain actors are willing to perpetuate political ends that justify ignore the law means. Hawaiian judges are still Hawaiian judges, not former judges…
No better time than the present for politicians checking judicial abuse…
“Carlson may not be racist, but the fact that he floats this idea to viewers who likely haven't even attended college (sorry, but check Fox's demographic) suggests he might not be as smart as he thinks.”
I’d wager that a majority of folks who haven’t attended college understand that nominees for SCOTUS should have a record of high achievement in college, law school and substantial experience participating in the U.S. justice system, guitarjoe.
"I support the President's appointment power. He got elected, and he has the choice. To reject the choice, you need something more than just the idea that there were better people and they were not picked or that he limited the choice to a type of person. That's his prerogative."
ohhhhh, this must mean...
/checks watch
yep, a Democrat is in office
everyone stand down
I have problems with the way affirmative action is done in the US - I think it should be community based rather than race based. But, it's of no significance how someone got into law school. What's important is what they have done in their legal career.
I'm pro choice, but was disgusted by the way liberals handled the confirmation hearings of Thomas and Kavanaugh. The attack there was about character rather than competency. Nothing wrong with looking at a potential SCOTUS Justice's character, it was the double standard that bothered me. If either of those nominees were pro choice, the allegations against them would not have been raised. Better to be upfront and vote against a SCOTUS nominee because you don't like their judicial philosophy than to use unsavory methods to taint their character.
When it comes to Tucker, he purposely mispronounced "Ketanji" to mock her foreign sounding name, just as he did with Kamala. If he has problems with them, for whatever reason, he should focus on that rather than mocking their names. He certainly has the cognitive capacity for that. When Biden's mispronounces a name it's because he lacks the cognitive ability to do so, not to mock.
Post a Comment