Ketanji Brown Jackson: Embarrassment

[Joe Ferguson forever]

33 minutes ago, MattM said:

What stain of DEI?

 

She got roughly the same grades as Gorsuch with almost twice the workload. She was also (literally) a national champion debater in high school.
 

I thought you guys were all about demonstrated objective merit? Or is that only a one-way street?  As noted, he was not an academic superstar (relative to HLS), not even graduating towards the top of the class, but you for some reason only focus on those things for her. Why is that?

 

For the record, I was actually friendly with the guy (he was fun to grab a drink with and shoot the *****) despite our political differences, so bear him no personal ill will despite my disappointment with his decisions and his crossing his fingers behind his back during his confirmation hearings.  I just find it hysterical how you folks are so willfully blind on this issue.

 

 

 

They don't like experts, especially ones that don't comport with their preconceived ideas.  Your  unusual, intimate knowledge is valuable to any rational observer of SCOTUS.  Please keep posting but don't expect anything other than bitter complaints and insults from the MAGA peanut gallery.

[All_Pro_Bills]

13 hours ago, pennstate10 said:

 

 

So, in context, it would seem like Mike Davis is a serious conservative, Republican.

 

Right?

 

Anyone want to argue that?

 

Now lets consider his first sentence.

 

"This is stunning a Supreme Court justice: 1. Actually thinks we must be ruled by unelected, unaccountable (leftwing) "experts""

 

Hmmm....lets think this through.

 

There are 3 branches of government, in the US, right?  Executive, Legislative, Judicial.

 

Question.

 

Which one of these three is unelected and unaccountable?

 

Answer:  The batsht crazy judicial branch, filled with professional grade grifters (Thomas, Alito), who have ruled that the president is above the law.

The SCOTUS did not rule the "President is above the law". They ruled the President is acting within the powers provided to the office by Article II of the US Constitution. And at times simply overruling activist lower court judges lacking the authority for issuing rulings and injunction that "infringe" on the authority of the executive branch. Essentially judges believing they have magical powers to veto the actions of the President.

 

What we have is not one elected would-be executive branch dictator but rather numerous un-elected would-be judicial branch dictators. Ironic many fail to observe this! If anyone is attempting to operate above the law its these activist judges. They're rulings are overridden because they are politically rather than legally motivated.

Edited 7 hours ago by All_Pro_Bills

[Joe Ferguson forever]

14 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

What we have is not one elected would-be executive branch dictator but rather numerous un-elected would-be judicial branch dictators. Ironic many fail to observe this! If anyone is attempting to operate above the law its these activist judges. They're rulings are overridden because they are politically rather than legally motivated.

which is clearly defined by the constitution.  the prez above the law, not so much.  Several justices disagreed with that ruling.

[pennstate10]

43 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

The SCOTUS did not rule the "President is above the law". They ruled the President is acting within the powers provided to the office by Article II of the US Constitution. And at times simply overruling activist lower court judges lacking the authority for issuing rulings and injunction that "infringe" on the authority of the executive branch. Essentially judges believing they have magical powers to veto the actions of the President.

 

What we have is not one elected would-be executive branch dictator but rather numerous un-elected would-be judicial branch dictators. Ironic many fail to observe this! If anyone is attempting to operate above the law its these activist judges. They're rulings are overridden because they are politically rather than legally motivated.

Semantics my friend. 
 

of course the SC didn’t issue a ruling stating that “the president is above the law”.  Rather they gave him extraordinarily broad (and vague) immunity, which effectively places the president above the law. 
 

Since most of us here are Bills fans, here is an analogy. 
 

You might say that Josh Allen running fo a first down with about 1:15 left in last weeks game ended the game.  In actuality, that run didn’t end the game. The game ended when the clock read 0:00. However, his run effectively ended the game. 
 

Make sense ?

[BillsFanNC]

All too predicably the useful idiots are deflecting with an attack the messenger strategy in this thread.

 

Therefore more Mike Davis on KBJ.

 

Cope and seethe.

 

 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

9 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

All too predicably the useful idiots are deflecting with an attack the messenger strategy in this thread.

 

Therefore more Mike Davis on KBJ.

 

Cope and seethe.

 

 

 

trump's minions tried this attack in the confirmation hearings.  It went down like a lead ballon.

But Epstein, Epstein still holds plenty of interest.  Now where are those files?

[BillsFanNC]

And just an FYI to useful idiots. Academic credentials took a long overdue and massive hit across the board when highly credentialed 'experts' lied to the public repeatedly during covid.

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by BillsFanNC

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

16 hours ago, MattM said:

You know who didn't even make law review (and thus was spared working 20 plus hours a week on it in addition to classes) and "only" graduated ***** laude from HLS (just like KBJ)?

 

Neil Gorsuch.

 

Funny that no one ever questions his credentials, isn't it? Why might that be?

 

"...no one ever questions his credentials..."?  

 

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/07/522902281/senate-confirms-gorsuch-to-supreme-court

 

Judge Neil Gorsuch was confirmed Friday as the 113th justice to serve on the nation's highest court. The final vote was 54-45, mostly along party lines.

 

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

58 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

And just an FYI to useful idiots. Academic credentials took a long overdue and massive hit across the board when highly credentialed 'experts' lied to the public repeatedly during covid.

 

 

how many died this year from covid?  what was most responsible for the decrease?  rubes doing their own research or highly educated scientist sdeveloping, testing and observing a vaccine?    if we had partitioned the country based on vax attitudes early on, there'd be a lot fewer anti vaxxers.

Edited 4 hours ago by Joe Ferguson forever

[B-Man]

 

 

Ketanji Brown Jackson Makes Up Her Own Doctrine About 'Experts'

in Bizarre Tangent During Supreme Court Oral Arguments

 By Michael Schwarz

 

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has a college sophomore’s understanding of the Constitution.

 

That is no exaggeration. In fact, it might understate the case. I have taught college sophomores whose knowledge of the Constitution’s basic principles far exceeds that of Jackson.

 

During oral arguments Monday in a case involving fired Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, Jackson peddled two grotesque lies, one of which showcased her own unconstitutional doctrine regarding so-called “experts” in the federal bureaucracy.

 

President Donald Trump fired Slaughter in March. Slaughter responded by suing the president, claiming that SCOTUS’ decision in the 1935 Humphrey’s Executor case prevents the elected chief executive from firing the unelected heads of agencies without cause.

 

On the whole, SCOTUS appeared hostile Monday to the idea that federal bureaucrats exist independent of the elected president’s will. That bodes well for Trump, the Constitution, liberty, and self-government.

 

Jackson, of course, generally plays fast and loose with the Constitution. On occasion, in fact, she has reportedly annoyed even her fellow liberal justices, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

 

On Monday, Jackson made her dubious claims during a back-and-forth with Slaughter’s attorney, Amit Agarwal.

 

Her first lie involved the place of “experts” in the constitutional order.

 

“Presidents have accepted,” she said, sounding eager to interrupt Agarwal and make his point for him, “that there could be both an understanding of Congress and the presidency that it is in the best interests of the American people to have certain kinds of issues handled by experts.”

 

Imagine speaking those words at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. How might the revolutionaries present there have responded to the attempted imposition of an aristocracy of “experts”?

 

Alas, Jackson’s second lie came moments later, when she described the federal bureaucracy as “non-partisan.”

 

After nearly 10 years of deep-state attacks on Trump, does anyone seriously regard the federal agencies as non-partisan?

 

https://www.westernjournal.com/ketanji-brown-jackson-makes-doctrine-experts-bizarre-tangent-supreme-court-oral-arguments/

 

 

[MattM]

6 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

 

"...no one ever questions his credentials..."?  

 

https://www.npr.org/2017/04/07/522902281/senate-confirms-gorsuch-to-supreme-court

 

Judge Neil Gorsuch was confirmed Friday as the 113th justice to serve on the nation's highest court. The final vote was 54-45, mostly along party lines.

 

 

That was because they didn't like his judicial views on various issues and/or may have suspected (correctly, it turns out) that he wasn't being truthful in his responses at the hearings.
 

I've never seen anyone attack his actual qualifications, including education and work experience, as is done repeatedly with KBJ.

[JDHillFan]

2 minutes ago, MattM said:

That was because they didn't like his judicial views on various issues and/or may have suspected (correctly, it turns out) that he wasn't being truthful in his responses at the hearings.
 

I've never seen anyone attack his actual qualifications, including education and work experience, as is done repeatedly with KBJ.

If I agree with you that Gorsuch is a baddie, will you tell me what some of your favorite KBJ moments as a Supreme Court justice have been? 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, MattM said:

That was because they didn't like his judicial views on various issues and/or may have suspected (correctly, it turns out) that he wasn't being truthful in his responses at the hearings.
 

I've never seen anyone attack his actual qualifications, including education and work experience, as is done repeatedly with KBJ.

Oh, so pretty much anything is on the table and within reason, except the actual qualifications (education and work experience included)?   That's the line is the sand where things get ugly for you?  Everything else is pretty much ok? 

 

Everybody has hot buttons, I guess.  

[BillsFanNC]

When KBJ said that she couldn't define what a woman is without consulting a biologist at her confirmation was she being truthful?

 

Or were her fingers crossed?

 

As a biologist I'm happy to offer my consulting services to her at the going rate of a Harvard trained lawyer when she needs this complex and highly nuanced question answered during the course of her SCOTUS duties.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by BillsFanNC

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

And just an FYI to useful idiots. Academic credentials took a long overdue and massive hit across the board when highly credentialed 'experts' lied to the public repeatedly during covid.

 

 

are they selling advanced degrees in Molecular Biology at wal mart this week or did you get yours on black Friday?

[Orlando Buffalo]

6 hours ago, MattM said:

As noted, regardless of how KBJ was on law review, she in fact was on law review, meaning she worked 20-30 hours/week on it and still had grades as good as Gorsuch based on them both graduating ***** laude (as did I and about 30-40% of my class--the top 10-15% (including Obama, BTW) graduated magna). Not being on law review, Gorsuch didn't have that 20-30/week burden.

 

Yet she's the one you folks love to attack as somehow unworthy and unqualified. I wonder why?

Not "up to snuff"? Where did you get your law degree? Prager U?

 

Did she lie to the Senate during her confirmation hearing on Roe being settled precedent (I believe Kavanaugh even used the term "Super Precedent")? Did she decide to make the President a king in that ridiculous immunity decision? (Don't worry, though, the Court will reverse that one so fast it will make your head spin if and when a Democrat is allowed to become President again.)

Another SC justice said this about her "We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself" and she has been voted at least twice as 8-1. I don't need to be a legal scholar to know that when this is happening that she is over her skis. I also don't need to be a legal scholar to know a judge that releases a person back into the community who has been convicted dozens of times of violent crimes is incompetent. Lastly your entire argument about her credentials is stupid because I am certain you have found in your work sometimes the most "credentialed" person is a moron who clearly can't apply the info properly, my worst administrator was a women who had two doctorates, psychology and educational leadership, and could not apply it at all, but she had a position because the piece of paper said she could.