Canon said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She is incapable of defining simple, self-evident terms required to rule on a plethora of laws. She admitted she doesn't even know when equal protection of the laws attaches to a human being. She is unfit as she is either an imbecile or a liar.

---

The question presented by the Tennessee Senator, was what should have been deemed a rhetorical one and Judge Brown was correct in not answering. The standard definition of woman (an adult human female) is all there is. The constitution (except in the suppressed areas where a black man is considered a fraction of a man, does not provide legal definitions of gender, nor does the law in general. The storm of controversy comes from a single transgender athlete which was allowed to compete under NCAA rules (a private organization) as a female. As the issue is likely to come before the SC, it would have been improper for a prospective Justice to proffer some legal definition where one does not as of now exist. As this argument proceeds any court should be extremely reticent to create a more extensive definition. Should we add a qualifiers anatomical or biological, are women who have had a hysterectomy still woman, is a man with a vasectomy still a man? I come from a conservative political background, and retain just enough of those sentiments to wish Government to stay the hell away from legal gender definitions.

---

Stay away? The Government has policies, programs and quotas based on gender. Title IX is all about gender. Selective Service has a gender component. Business procurement programs have "Women Owned Business" as getting more points. There are more, but you get my point. Not to mention that the transgender question is playing out in public schools, Federal employment, and other areas.

So, how can the Government NOT have a definition that a Supreme Court nominee can't answer??? Blackburn was in her rights to ask that question if the Government is going to delve into providing benefits, protections and opportunities based on gender.

The Nominee was out of line with the snarky response. If she said each program or agency has their own legal definition, so I can't give you one. Or, which agency and program are we discussing? There are numerous ways to have that conversation and get the point across without saying she is not Biologist.

By the way, that now sets her up for those words coming back if a case is before her, as biology has a definition - XX chromosomes. Thomas should not be racing according the nominee...

---

If we take your position as true, her answer should have been, "I am unaware of any case law or statute that defines what a woman is." Instead, however, she answered, "I am not a biologist." That answer generally excludes your explanation.

Came from a conservative background? We know you abandoned that long ago.

---

Her answer unintentionally admitted that sex/gender are biological. Oooops!!!!

---

I guess only a biologist can define gender? If you are not a biologist you are excluded from being able to answer. Yeah, that doesn't box you in.

Canon said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She is incapable of defining simple, self-evident terms required to rule on a plethora of laws. She admitted she doesn't even know when equal protection of the laws attaches to a human being. She is unfit as she is either an imbecile or a liar.

---

The question presented by the Tennessee Senator, was what should have been deemed a rhetorical one and Judge Brown was correct in not answering. The standard definition of woman (an adult human female) is all there is. The constitution (except in the suppressed areas where a black man is considered a fraction of a man, does not provide legal definitions of gender, nor does the law in general. The storm of controversy comes from a single transgender athlete which was allowed to compete under NCAA rules (a private organization) as a female. As the issue is likely to come before the SC, it would have been improper for a prospective Justice to proffer some legal definition where one does not as of now exist. As this argument proceeds any court should be extremely reticent to create a more extensive definition. Should we add a qualifiers anatomical or biological, are women who have had a hysterectomy still woman, is a man with a vasectomy still a man? I come from a conservative political background, and retain just enough of those sentiments to wish Government to stay the hell away from legal gender definitions.

---

Stay away? The Government has policies, programs and quotas based on gender. Title IX is all about gender. Selective Service has a gender component. Business procurement programs have "Women Owned Business" as getting more points. There are more, but you get my point. Not to mention that the transgender question is playing out in public schools, Federal employment, and other areas.

So, how can the Government NOT have a definition that a Supreme Court nominee can't answer??? Blackburn was in her rights to ask that question if the Government is going to delve into providing benefits, protections and opportunities based on gender.

The Nominee was out of line with the snarky response. If she said each program or agency has their own legal definition, so I can't give you one. Or, which agency and program are we discussing? There are numerous ways to have that conversation and get the point across without saying she is not Biologist.

By the way, that now sets her up for those words coming back if a case is before her, as biology has a definition - XX chromosomes. Thomas should not be racing according the nominee...

---

If we take your position as true, her answer should have been, "I am unaware of any case law or statute that defines what a woman is." Instead, however, she answered, "I am not a biologist." That answer generally excludes your explanation.

Came from a conservative background? We know you abandoned that long ago.

---

Her answer unintentionally admitted that sex/gender are biological. Oooops!!!!

---

LOL. A negative reference to an occupation she does not have was an answer by non sequitur. A legal opinion was not proffered. You guys have lambasted her ability, how would you provide a legal definition to woman or man? Are you going to define by hormone, or the sexual organs? The first method was tried by NCAA, the person in question passed the blood test. So, what then, we just go by reproductive organs? ... sorry you guys with a vasectomy, please try a different restroom... try telling a cancer survivor with grand kids that because of her surgery she know longer qualifies. What ever language you come up, at the end of the day, you are going to hurt and offend a hell of a lot of people, and all because one girl came in second.

Judge Jackson's comment was a lob over the net for Sen. Blackburn who failed to see it and respond accordingly. She should have quoted Justice Stewart: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

Men and women are platonic forms, and Judge Jackson's dodge was very revealing about her worldview.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

Biden said his only criteria was black and woman. She couldn't define woman. As such, unqualified for Biden's pick.

TWD 74 said:

---

Canon said:

---

Mothra said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

TWD 74 said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She is incapable of defining simple, self-evident terms required to rule on a plethora of laws. She admitted she doesn't even know when equal protection of the laws attaches to a human being. She is unfit as she is either an imbecile or a liar.

---

The question presented by the Tennessee Senator, was what should have been deemed a rhetorical one and Judge Brown was correct in not answering. The standard definition of woman (an adult human female) is all there is. The constitution (except in the suppressed areas where a black man is considered a fraction of a man, does not provide legal definitions of gender, nor does the law in general. The storm of controversy comes from a single transgender athlete which was allowed to compete under NCAA rules (a private organization) as a female. As the issue is likely to come before the SC, it would have been improper for a prospective Justice to proffer some legal definition where one does not as of now exist. As this argument proceeds any court should be extremely reticent to create a more extensive definition. Should we add a qualifiers anatomical or biological, are women who have had a hysterectomy still woman, is a man with a vasectomy still a man? I come from a conservative political background, and retain just enough of those sentiments to wish Government to stay the hell away from legal gender definitions.

---

Stay away? The Government has policies, programs and quotas based on gender. Title IX is all about gender. Selective Service has a gender component. Business procurement programs have "Women Owned Business" as getting more points. There are more, but you get my point. Not to mention that the transgender question is playing out in public schools, Federal employment, and other areas.

So, how can the Government NOT have a definition that a Supreme Court nominee can't answer??? Blackburn was in her rights to ask that question if the Government is going to delve into providing benefits, protections and opportunities based on gender.

The Nominee was out of line with the snarky response. If she said each program or agency has their own legal definition, so I can't give you one. Or, which agency and program are we discussing? There are numerous ways to have that conversation and get the point across without saying she is not Biologist.

By the way, that now sets her up for those words coming back if a case is before her, as biology has a definition - XX chromosomes. Thomas should not be racing according the nominee...

---

If we take your position as true, her answer should have been, "I am unaware of any case law or statute that defines what a woman is." Instead, however, she answered, "I am not a biologist." That answer generally excludes your explanation.

Came from a conservative background? We know you abandoned that long ago.

---

Her answer unintentionally admitted that sex/gender are biological. Oooops!!!!

---

LOL. A negative reference to an occupation she does not have was an answer by non sequitur. A legal opinion was not proffered. You guys have lambasted her ability, how would you provide a legal definition to woman or man? Are you going to define by hormone, or the sexual organs? The first method was tried by NCAA, the person in question passed the blood test. So, what then, we just go by reproductive organs? ... sorry you guys with a vasectomy, please try a different restroom... try telling a cancer survivor with grand kids that because of her surgery she know longer qualifies. What ever language you come up, at the end of the day, you are going to hurt and offend a hell of a lot of people, and all because one girl came in second.

---

No, the proper response was the legal reason not to give the definition. Showing an understanding of not only the law, but process. You and several others have given better answers to that question.

Several lawyers on here keep going back to judicial thinking and outcomes. I am not talking judicial. This is a confirmation hearing, political not judicial.

Her response showed contempt and a lack of understanding of process.

That is what we are talkng about. But, to answer your question, using biology you can find in any biology book. XX chromosome is the defining factor in gender. Thank you, Judge Jackson for confirming it.

Convicted child rapist nabbed for assault after lax sentence from Ketanji Brown Jackson https://t.co/V2DKLY5h74 pic.twitter.com/4cAVPB1FYB

— New York Post (@nypost) April 3, 2022

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

May I ask what value her being a Public Defender brings to a Court with the following purpose?


"Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."

The criminal system is primarily the State system. So, if we were talking a State Supreme Court, I would fully agree and think she would make a good candidate, especially with her Public Defender background.

For the Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction of cases between States or involving ambassadors and other public ministers? Even the appellate jurisdiction involves constitutional or federal law. What percent of Federal Cases at the Supreme Court involve criminal? From what I can tell it comes down to a range of 2% to 14% of cases involve criminal.

So I ask you, is she the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice if her unique qualification at most will impact 14% of cases? Will she be over her head on the other 86%?

Nothing against her as a Justice, I might not agree with her positions, but she is a qualified, respected jurist. I just do not think that the Supreme Court is the right place for her. State Supreme Court, slam dunk. I actually think that is where she can do the most good.

Quash back to lying I see. I have not "fled the field" simply for not giving drivel attention it has not earned.

Must be a day ending in "day".

And last I checked, the nominee should demonstrate he/she is qualified and unbiased, the nominee for the SCOTUS should not take the seat by default.

Of course quash has forgotten, if he ever cared, about the way Democrats handled confirmation hearings for the last several nominees.

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

May I ask what value her being a Public Defender brings to a Court with the following purpose?


"Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."

The criminal system is primarily the State system. So, if we were talking a State Supreme Court, I would fully agree and think she would make a good candidate, especially with her Public Defender background.

For the Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction of cases between States or involving ambassadors and other public ministers? Even the appellate jurisdiction involves constitutional or federal law. What percent of Federal Cases at the Supreme Court involve criminal? From what I can tell it comes down to a range of 2% to 14% of cases involve criminal.

So I ask you, is she the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice if her unique qualification at most will impact 14% of cases? Will she be over her head on the other 86%?

Nothing against her as a Justice, I might not agree with her positions, but she is a qualified, respected jurist. I just do not think that the Supreme Court is the right place for her. State Supreme Court, slam dunk. I actually think that is where she can do the most good.

---

SCOTUS rulings in criminal cases affects people all the time. It affects police interactions with citizens, who gets appointed counsel, etc. And stop in your local county courthouse or municipal court some day and see if your 17% figure holds. It won't.

She is nominated because she has a black vagina. That was the only qualification the president stated. Yet she cannot define what a vagina is. If she cannot qualify herself to the president's criteria, how can the senate vote?

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

May I ask what value her being a Public Defender brings to a Court with the following purpose?


"Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."

The criminal system is primarily the State system. So, if we were talking a State Supreme Court, I would fully agree and think she would make a good candidate, especially with her Public Defender background.

For the Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction of cases between States or involving ambassadors and other public ministers? Even the appellate jurisdiction involves constitutional or federal law. What percent of Federal Cases at the Supreme Court involve criminal? From what I can tell it comes down to a range of 2% to 14% of cases involve criminal.

So I ask you, is she the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice if her unique qualification at most will impact 14% of cases? Will she be over her head on the other 86%?

Nothing against her as a Justice, I might not agree with her positions, but she is a qualified, respected jurist. I just do not think that the Supreme Court is the right place for her. State Supreme Court, slam dunk. I actually think that is where she can do the most good.

---

SCOTUS rulings in criminal cases affects people all the time. It affects police interactions with citizens, who gets appointed counsel, etc. And stop in your local county courthouse or municipal court some day and see if your 17% figure holds. It won't.

---

You are making my case. County and Municipal are State courts. The State SC is where she is best qualified. US SC is not criminally based, Constitutional, inter-state. That is not her strength.

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

May I ask what value her being a Public Defender brings to a Court with the following purpose?


"Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."

The criminal system is primarily the State system. So, if we were talking a State Supreme Court, I would fully agree and think she would make a good candidate, especially with her Public Defender background.

For the Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction of cases between States or involving ambassadors and other public ministers? Even the appellate jurisdiction involves constitutional or federal law. What percent of Federal Cases at the Supreme Court involve criminal? From what I can tell it comes down to a range of 2% to 14% of cases involve criminal.

So I ask you, is she the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice if her unique qualification at most will impact 14% of cases? Will she be over her head on the other 86%?

Nothing against her as a Justice, I might not agree with her positions, but she is a qualified, respected jurist. I just do not think that the Supreme Court is the right place for her. State Supreme Court, slam dunk. I actually think that is where she can do the most good.

---

SCOTUS rulings in criminal cases affects people all the time. It affects police interactions with citizens, who gets appointed counsel, etc. And stop in your local county courthouse or municipal court some day and see if your 17% figure holds. It won't.

---

You are making my case. County and Municipal are State courts. The State SC is where she is best qualified. US SC is not criminally based, Constitutional, inter-state. That is not her strength.

---

Criminal law is an important part of what SCOTUS does, including cases that come up from state supreme courts. When you talk about constitutional law, much of that is in the criminal area.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

May I ask what value her being a Public Defender brings to a Court with the following purpose?


"Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."

The criminal system is primarily the State system. So, if we were talking a State Supreme Court, I would fully agree and think she would make a good candidate, especially with her Public Defender background.

For the Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction of cases between States or involving ambassadors and other public ministers? Even the appellate jurisdiction involves constitutional or federal law. What percent of Federal Cases at the Supreme Court involve criminal? From what I can tell it comes down to a range of 2% to 14% of cases involve criminal.

So I ask you, is she the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice if her unique qualification at most will impact 14% of cases? Will she be over her head on the other 86%?

Nothing against her as a Justice, I might not agree with her positions, but she is a qualified, respected jurist. I just do not think that the Supreme Court is the right place for her. State Supreme Court, slam dunk. I actually think that is where she can do the most good.

---

SCOTUS rulings in criminal cases affects people all the time. It affects police interactions with citizens, who gets appointed counsel, etc. And stop in your local county courthouse or municipal court some day and see if your 17% figure holds. It won't.

---

You are making my case. County and Municipal are State courts. The State SC is where she is best qualified. US SC is not criminally based, Constitutional, inter-state. That is not her strength.

---

Criminal law is an important part of what SCOTUS does, including cases that come up from state supreme courts. When you talk about constitutional law, much of that is in the criminal area.

---

Check the numbers. You are correct that of what the States send to the SC it is mostly criminal. For the Roberts Court, 73% of the State cases sent to the SC are criminal related. So, what does that number represent of the SC's total work load???

But State cases reflect 10 to 20% of the SC typical work load. So, what is 73% of 20% = 14.6. I will give you the high end.

Does this mean there have never been more? No. Does it mean there will never be more? No.
All it means is if you are looking for the best qualified Jurist to be a SC Justice, criminal expertise is not what you look for. If you want to make a qualification fit, sure you can make Mr Magoo qualified, but not the best qualified.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

May I ask what value her being a Public Defender brings to a Court with the following purpose?


"Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."

The criminal system is primarily the State system. So, if we were talking a State Supreme Court, I would fully agree and think she would make a good candidate, especially with her Public Defender background.

For the Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction of cases between States or involving ambassadors and other public ministers? Even the appellate jurisdiction involves constitutional or federal law. What percent of Federal Cases at the Supreme Court involve criminal? From what I can tell it comes down to a range of 2% to 14% of cases involve criminal.

So I ask you, is she the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice if her unique qualification at most will impact 14% of cases? Will she be over her head on the other 86%?

Nothing against her as a Justice, I might not agree with her positions, but she is a qualified, respected jurist. I just do not think that the Supreme Court is the right place for her. State Supreme Court, slam dunk. I actually think that is where she can do the most good.

---

SCOTUS rulings in criminal cases affects people all the time. It affects police interactions with citizens, who gets appointed counsel, etc. And stop in your local county courthouse or municipal court some day and see if your 17% figure holds. It won't.

---

You are making my case. County and Municipal are State courts. The State SC is where she is best qualified. US SC is not criminally based, Constitutional, inter-state. That is not her strength.

---

Criminal law is an important part of what SCOTUS does, including cases that come up from state supreme courts. When you talk about constitutional law, much of that is in the criminal area.

---

Check the numbers. You are correct that of what the States send to the SC it is mostly criminal. For the Roberts Court, 73% of the State cases sent to the SC are criminal related. So, what does that number represent of the SC's total work load???

But State cases reflect 10 to 20% of the SC typical work load. So, what is 73% of 20% = 14.6. I will give you the high end.

Does this mean there have never been more? No. Does it mean there will never be more? No.
All it means is if you are looking for the best qualified Jurist to be a SC Justice, criminal expertise is not what you look for. If you want to make a qualification fit, sure you can make Mr Magoo qualified, but not the best qualified.

---

Supreme Court justices need to have and do have a broad understanding of the law. There's no reason to assume she'd be out of her depth in other areas. Quash's point was simply that a public defender brings a different perspective and it's good to have a variety of backgrounds represented.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

May I ask what value her being a Public Defender brings to a Court with the following purpose?


"Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."

The criminal system is primarily the State system. So, if we were talking a State Supreme Court, I would fully agree and think she would make a good candidate, especially with her Public Defender background.

For the Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction of cases between States or involving ambassadors and other public ministers? Even the appellate jurisdiction involves constitutional or federal law. What percent of Federal Cases at the Supreme Court involve criminal? From what I can tell it comes down to a range of 2% to 14% of cases involve criminal.

So I ask you, is she the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice if her unique qualification at most will impact 14% of cases? Will she be over her head on the other 86%?

Nothing against her as a Justice, I might not agree with her positions, but she is a qualified, respected jurist. I just do not think that the Supreme Court is the right place for her. State Supreme Court, slam dunk. I actually think that is where she can do the most good.

---

SCOTUS rulings in criminal cases affects people all the time. It affects police interactions with citizens, who gets appointed counsel, etc. And stop in your local county courthouse or municipal court some day and see if your 17% figure holds. It won't.

---

You are making my case. County and Municipal are State courts. The State SC is where she is best qualified. US SC is not criminally based, Constitutional, inter-state. That is not her strength.

---

Criminal law is an important part of what SCOTUS does, including cases that come up from state supreme courts. When you talk about constitutional law, much of that is in the criminal area.

---

Check the numbers. You are correct that of what the States send to the SC it is mostly criminal. For the Roberts Court, 73% of the State cases sent to the SC are criminal related. So, what does that number represent of the SC's total work load???

But State cases reflect 10 to 20% of the SC typical work load. So, what is 73% of 20% = 14.6. I will give you the high end.

Does this mean there have never been more? No. Does it mean there will never be more? No.
All it means is if you are looking for the best qualified Jurist to be a SC Justice, criminal expertise is not what you look for. If you want to make a qualification fit, sure you can make Mr Magoo qualified, but not the best qualified.

---

Supreme Court justices need to have and do have a broad understanding of the law. There's no reason to assume she'd be out of her depth in other areas. Quash's point was simply that a public defender brings a different perspective and it's good to have a variety of backgrounds represented.

---

I did not say his position was wrong. I respected his opinion. I answered his question as to why someone would think she wasn't the best qualified. I gave my view, which it appears does not get the same respect as his and I have spent too much of my time defending why I don't think that Public Defense gives her any unique qualification. I even said where I thought her experience is best fitted. Why is it that is not enough?

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

May I ask what value her being a Public Defender brings to a Court with the following purpose?


"Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."

The criminal system is primarily the State system. So, if we were talking a State Supreme Court, I would fully agree and think she would make a good candidate, especially with her Public Defender background.

For the Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction of cases between States or involving ambassadors and other public ministers? Even the appellate jurisdiction involves constitutional or federal law. What percent of Federal Cases at the Supreme Court involve criminal? From what I can tell it comes down to a range of 2% to 14% of cases involve criminal.

So I ask you, is she the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice if her unique qualification at most will impact 14% of cases? Will she be over her head on the other 86%?

Nothing against her as a Justice, I might not agree with her positions, but she is a qualified, respected jurist. I just do not think that the Supreme Court is the right place for her. State Supreme Court, slam dunk. I actually think that is where she can do the most good.

---

SCOTUS rulings in criminal cases affects people all the time. It affects police interactions with citizens, who gets appointed counsel, etc. And stop in your local county courthouse or municipal court some day and see if your 17% figure holds. It won't.

---

You are making my case. County and Municipal are State courts. The State SC is where she is best qualified. US SC is not criminally based, Constitutional, inter-state. That is not her strength.

---

Criminal law is an important part of what SCOTUS does, including cases that come up from state supreme courts. When you talk about constitutional law, much of that is in the criminal area.

---

Check the numbers. You are correct that of what the States send to the SC it is mostly criminal. For the Roberts Court, 73% of the State cases sent to the SC are criminal related. So, what does that number represent of the SC's total work load???

But State cases reflect 10 to 20% of the SC typical work load. So, what is 73% of 20% = 14.6. I will give you the high end.

Does this mean there have never been more? No. Does it mean there will never be more? No.
All it means is if you are looking for the best qualified Jurist to be a SC Justice, criminal expertise is not what you look for. If you want to make a qualification fit, sure you can make Mr Magoo qualified, but not the best qualified.

---

Supreme Court justices need to have and do have a broad understanding of the law. There's no reason to assume she'd be out of her depth in other areas. Quash's point was simply that a public defender brings a different perspective and it's good to have a variety of backgrounds represented.

---

I did not say his position was wrong. I respected his opinion. I answered his question as to why someone would think she wasn't the best qualified. I gave my view, which it appears does not get the same respect as his and I have spent too much of my time defending why I don't think that Public Defense gives her any unique qualification. I even said where I thought her experience is best fitted. Why is it that is not enough?

---

I just think it's odd to say her place isn't on the Supreme Court because she has a criminal law background. She's been a federal judge for almost ten years and would have heard a variety of cases during that time. She also worked at a tort firm and clerked for Breyer and a 1st Circuit judge. I'm not really a fan of hers, but just saying.

GrowlTowel said:

---

She is nominated because she has a black vagina. That was the only qualification the president stated. Yet she cannot define what a vagina is. If she cannot qualify herself to the president's criteria, how can the senate vote?

---

Technically speaking, they are all the same color.

Don't ask me how I know this.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

May I ask what value her being a Public Defender brings to a Court with the following purpose?


"Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."

The criminal system is primarily the State system. So, if we were talking a State Supreme Court, I would fully agree and think she would make a good candidate, especially with her Public Defender background.

For the Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction of cases between States or involving ambassadors and other public ministers? Even the appellate jurisdiction involves constitutional or federal law. What percent of Federal Cases at the Supreme Court involve criminal? From what I can tell it comes down to a range of 2% to 14% of cases involve criminal.

So I ask you, is she the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice if her unique qualification at most will impact 14% of cases? Will she be over her head on the other 86%?

Nothing against her as a Justice, I might not agree with her positions, but she is a qualified, respected jurist. I just do not think that the Supreme Court is the right place for her. State Supreme Court, slam dunk. I actually think that is where she can do the most good.

---

SCOTUS rulings in criminal cases affects people all the time. It affects police interactions with citizens, who gets appointed counsel, etc. And stop in your local county courthouse or municipal court some day and see if your 17% figure holds. It won't.

---

You are making my case. County and Municipal are State courts. The State SC is where she is best qualified. US SC is not criminally based, Constitutional, inter-state. That is not her strength.

---

Criminal law is an important part of what SCOTUS does, including cases that come up from state supreme courts. When you talk about constitutional law, much of that is in the criminal area.

---

Check the numbers. You are correct that of what the States send to the SC it is mostly criminal. For the Roberts Court, 73% of the State cases sent to the SC are criminal related. So, what does that number represent of the SC's total work load???

But State cases reflect 10 to 20% of the SC typical work load. So, what is 73% of 20% = 14.6. I will give you the high end.

Does this mean there have never been more? No. Does it mean there will never be more? No.
All it means is if you are looking for the best qualified Jurist to be a SC Justice, criminal expertise is not what you look for. If you want to make a qualification fit, sure you can make Mr Magoo qualified, but not the best qualified.

---

Supreme Court justices need to have and do have a broad understanding of the law. There's no reason to assume she'd be out of her depth in other areas. Quash's point was simply that a public defender brings a different perspective and it's good to have a variety of backgrounds represented.

---

I did not say his position was wrong. I respected his opinion. I answered his question as to why someone would think she wasn't the best qualified. I gave my view, which it appears does not get the same respect as his and I have spent too much of my time defending why I don't think that Public Defense gives her any unique qualification. I even said where I thought her experience is best fitted. Why is it that is not enough?

---

I just think it's odd to say her place isn't on the Supreme Court because she has a criminal law background. She's been a federal judge for almost ten years and would have heard a variety of cases during that time. She also worked at a tort firm and clerked for Breyer and a 1st Circuit judge. I'm not really a fan of hers, but just saying.

---

"She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first Public defender on the high court."

This is the Post I responded to and gave my opinion in regard to a Candidate that is using Public Defender status as a differentiator in selecting a SC Justice. I just don't think that it is a big enough part of the job to select her because of that experience over other Candidates with similar and superior experience in an area the Court does more of its work.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

May I ask what value her being a Public Defender brings to a Court with the following purpose?


"Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."

The criminal system is primarily the State system. So, if we were talking a State Supreme Court, I would fully agree and think she would make a good candidate, especially with her Public Defender background.

For the Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction of cases between States or involving ambassadors and other public ministers? Even the appellate jurisdiction involves constitutional or federal law. What percent of Federal Cases at the Supreme Court involve criminal? From what I can tell it comes down to a range of 2% to 14% of cases involve criminal.

So I ask you, is she the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice if her unique qualification at most will impact 14% of cases? Will she be over her head on the other 86%?

Nothing against her as a Justice, I might not agree with her positions, but she is a qualified, respected jurist. I just do not think that the Supreme Court is the right place for her. State Supreme Court, slam dunk. I actually think that is where she can do the most good.

---

SCOTUS rulings in criminal cases affects people all the time. It affects police interactions with citizens, who gets appointed counsel, etc. And stop in your local county courthouse or municipal court some day and see if your 17% figure holds. It won't.

---

You are making my case. County and Municipal are State courts. The State SC is where she is best qualified. US SC is not criminally based, Constitutional, inter-state. That is not her strength.

---

Criminal law is an important part of what SCOTUS does, including cases that come up from state supreme courts. When you talk about constitutional law, much of that is in the criminal area.

---

Check the numbers. You are correct that of what the States send to the SC it is mostly criminal. For the Roberts Court, 73% of the State cases sent to the SC are criminal related. So, what does that number represent of the SC's total work load???

But State cases reflect 10 to 20% of the SC typical work load. So, what is 73% of 20% = 14.6. I will give you the high end.

Does this mean there have never been more? No. Does it mean there will never be more? No.
All it means is if you are looking for the best qualified Jurist to be a SC Justice, criminal expertise is not what you look for. If you want to make a qualification fit, sure you can make Mr Magoo qualified, but not the best qualified.

---

Supreme Court justices need to have and do have a broad understanding of the law. There's no reason to assume she'd be out of her depth in other areas. Quash's point was simply that a public defender brings a different perspective and it's good to have a variety of backgrounds represented.

---

I did not say his position was wrong. I respected his opinion. I answered his question as to why someone would think she wasn't the best qualified. I gave my view, which it appears does not get the same respect as his and I have spent too much of my time defending why I don't think that Public Defense gives her any unique qualification. I even said where I thought her experience is best fitted. Why is it that is not enough?

---

I just think it's odd to say her place isn't on the Supreme Court because she has a criminal law background. She's been a federal judge for almost ten years and would have heard a variety of cases during that time. She also worked at a tort firm and clerked for Breyer and a 1st Circuit judge. I'm not really a fan of hers, but just saying.

---

"She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first Public defender on the high court."

This is the Post I responded to and gave my opinion in regard to a Candidate that is using Public Defender status as a differentiator in selecting a SC Justice. I just don't think that it is a big enough part of the job to select her because of that experience over other Candidates with similar and superior experience in an area the Court does more of its work.

---

Well, look at it this way - she'd be less than 14 percent of the Court. Not every player is a kicker, but when you need them you need them.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

May I ask what value her being a Public Defender brings to a Court with the following purpose?


"Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."

The criminal system is primarily the State system. So, if we were talking a State Supreme Court, I would fully agree and think she would make a good candidate, especially with her Public Defender background.

For the Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction of cases between States or involving ambassadors and other public ministers? Even the appellate jurisdiction involves constitutional or federal law. What percent of Federal Cases at the Supreme Court involve criminal? From what I can tell it comes down to a range of 2% to 14% of cases involve criminal.

So I ask you, is she the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice if her unique qualification at most will impact 14% of cases? Will she be over her head on the other 86%?

Nothing against her as a Justice, I might not agree with her positions, but she is a qualified, respected jurist. I just do not think that the Supreme Court is the right place for her. State Supreme Court, slam dunk. I actually think that is where she can do the most good.

---

SCOTUS rulings in criminal cases affects people all the time. It affects police interactions with citizens, who gets appointed counsel, etc. And stop in your local county courthouse or municipal court some day and see if your 17% figure holds. It won't.

---

You are making my case. County and Municipal are State courts. The State SC is where she is best qualified. US SC is not criminally based, Constitutional, inter-state. That is not her strength.

---

Criminal law is an important part of what SCOTUS does, including cases that come up from state supreme courts. When you talk about constitutional law, much of that is in the criminal area.

---

Check the numbers. You are correct that of what the States send to the SC it is mostly criminal. For the Roberts Court, 73% of the State cases sent to the SC are criminal related. So, what does that number represent of the SC's total work load???

But State cases reflect 10 to 20% of the SC typical work load. So, what is 73% of 20% = 14.6. I will give you the high end.

Does this mean there have never been more? No. Does it mean there will never be more? No.
All it means is if you are looking for the best qualified Jurist to be a SC Justice, criminal expertise is not what you look for. If you want to make a qualification fit, sure you can make Mr Magoo qualified, but not the best qualified.

---

Supreme Court justices need to have and do have a broad understanding of the law. There's no reason to assume she'd be out of her depth in other areas. Quash's point was simply that a public defender brings a different perspective and it's good to have a variety of backgrounds represented.

---

I did not say his position was wrong. I respected his opinion. I answered his question as to why someone would think she wasn't the best qualified. I gave my view, which it appears does not get the same respect as his and I have spent too much of my time defending why I don't think that Public Defense gives her any unique qualification. I even said where I thought her experience is best fitted. Why is it that is not enough?

---

I just think it's odd to say her place isn't on the Supreme Court because she has a criminal law background. She's been a federal judge for almost ten years and would have heard a variety of cases during that time. She also worked at a tort firm and clerked for Breyer and a 1st Circuit judge. I'm not really a fan of hers, but just saying.

---

"She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first Public defender on the high court."

This is the Post I responded to and gave my opinion in regard to a Candidate that is using Public Defender status as a differentiator in selecting a SC Justice. I just don't think that it is a big enough part of the job to select her because of that experience over other Candidates with similar and superior experience in an area the Court does more of its work.

---

Well, look at it this way - she'd be less than 14 percent of the Court. Not every player is a kicker, but when you need them you need them.

---

So you do believe that being a public defender is special enough skill set to separate her from the others on the list. A lack of criminal experience has been an issue on the US SC?

‘Activist To The Core’: Lindsey Graham Explains Why Ketanji Brown Jackson Is The First SCOTUS Nominee He Won’t Vote For https://t.co/3Bu3gNaPXe pic.twitter.com/YD5urSD4dP

— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) April 4, 2022

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

May I ask what value her being a Public Defender brings to a Court with the following purpose?


"Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."

The criminal system is primarily the State system. So, if we were talking a State Supreme Court, I would fully agree and think she would make a good candidate, especially with her Public Defender background.

For the Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction of cases between States or involving ambassadors and other public ministers? Even the appellate jurisdiction involves constitutional or federal law. What percent of Federal Cases at the Supreme Court involve criminal? From what I can tell it comes down to a range of 2% to 14% of cases involve criminal.

So I ask you, is she the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice if her unique qualification at most will impact 14% of cases? Will she be over her head on the other 86%?

Nothing against her as a Justice, I might not agree with her positions, but she is a qualified, respected jurist. I just do not think that the Supreme Court is the right place for her. State Supreme Court, slam dunk. I actually think that is where she can do the most good.

---

SCOTUS rulings in criminal cases affects people all the time. It affects police interactions with citizens, who gets appointed counsel, etc. And stop in your local county courthouse or municipal court some day and see if your 17% figure holds. It won't.

---

You are making my case. County and Municipal are State courts. The State SC is where she is best qualified. US SC is not criminally based, Constitutional, inter-state. That is not her strength.

---

Criminal law is an important part of what SCOTUS does, including cases that come up from state supreme courts. When you talk about constitutional law, much of that is in the criminal area.

---

Check the numbers. You are correct that of what the States send to the SC it is mostly criminal. For the Roberts Court, 73% of the State cases sent to the SC are criminal related. So, what does that number represent of the SC's total work load???

But State cases reflect 10 to 20% of the SC typical work load. So, what is 73% of 20% = 14.6. I will give you the high end.

Does this mean there have never been more? No. Does it mean there will never be more? No.
All it means is if you are looking for the best qualified Jurist to be a SC Justice, criminal expertise is not what you look for. If you want to make a qualification fit, sure you can make Mr Magoo qualified, but not the best qualified.

---

Supreme Court justices need to have and do have a broad understanding of the law. There's no reason to assume she'd be out of her depth in other areas. Quash's point was simply that a public defender brings a different perspective and it's good to have a variety of backgrounds represented.

---

I did not say his position was wrong. I respected his opinion. I answered his question as to why someone would think she wasn't the best qualified. I gave my view, which it appears does not get the same respect as his and I have spent too much of my time defending why I don't think that Public Defense gives her any unique qualification. I even said where I thought her experience is best fitted. Why is it that is not enough?

---

I just think it's odd to say her place isn't on the Supreme Court because she has a criminal law background. She's been a federal judge for almost ten years and would have heard a variety of cases during that time. She also worked at a tort firm and clerked for Breyer and a 1st Circuit judge. I'm not really a fan of hers, but just saying.

---

"She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first Public defender on the high court."

This is the Post I responded to and gave my opinion in regard to a Candidate that is using Public Defender status as a differentiator in selecting a SC Justice. I just don't think that it is a big enough part of the job to select her because of that experience over other Candidates with similar and superior experience in an area the Court does more of its work.

---

Well, look at it this way - she'd be less than 14 percent of the Court. Not every player is a kicker, but when you need them you need them.

---

So you do believe that being a public defender is special enough skill set to separate her from the others on the list. A lack of criminal experience has been an issue on the US SC?

---

I believe a public defender would bring a welcome diversity of opinion. It's not criminal experience but the particular kind of criminal experience that's notable.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

May I ask what value her being a Public Defender brings to a Court with the following purpose?


"Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."

The criminal system is primarily the State system. So, if we were talking a State Supreme Court, I would fully agree and think she would make a good candidate, especially with her Public Defender background.

For the Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction of cases between States or involving ambassadors and other public ministers? Even the appellate jurisdiction involves constitutional or federal law. What percent of Federal Cases at the Supreme Court involve criminal? From what I can tell it comes down to a range of 2% to 14% of cases involve criminal.

So I ask you, is she the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice if her unique qualification at most will impact 14% of cases? Will she be over her head on the other 86%?

Nothing against her as a Justice, I might not agree with her positions, but she is a qualified, respected jurist. I just do not think that the Supreme Court is the right place for her. State Supreme Court, slam dunk. I actually think that is where she can do the most good.

---

SCOTUS rulings in criminal cases affects people all the time. It affects police interactions with citizens, who gets appointed counsel, etc. And stop in your local county courthouse or municipal court some day and see if your 17% figure holds. It won't.

---

You are making my case. County and Municipal are State courts. The State SC is where she is best qualified. US SC is not criminally based, Constitutional, inter-state. That is not her strength.

---

Criminal law is an important part of what SCOTUS does, including cases that come up from state supreme courts. When you talk about constitutional law, much of that is in the criminal area.

---

Check the numbers. You are correct that of what the States send to the SC it is mostly criminal. For the Roberts Court, 73% of the State cases sent to the SC are criminal related. So, what does that number represent of the SC's total work load???

But State cases reflect 10 to 20% of the SC typical work load. So, what is 73% of 20% = 14.6. I will give you the high end.

Does this mean there have never been more? No. Does it mean there will never be more? No.
All it means is if you are looking for the best qualified Jurist to be a SC Justice, criminal expertise is not what you look for. If you want to make a qualification fit, sure you can make Mr Magoo qualified, but not the best qualified.

---

Supreme Court justices need to have and do have a broad understanding of the law. There's no reason to assume she'd be out of her depth in other areas. Quash's point was simply that a public defender brings a different perspective and it's good to have a variety of backgrounds represented.

---

I did not say his position was wrong. I respected his opinion. I answered his question as to why someone would think she wasn't the best qualified. I gave my view, which it appears does not get the same respect as his and I have spent too much of my time defending why I don't think that Public Defense gives her any unique qualification. I even said where I thought her experience is best fitted. Why is it that is not enough?

---

I just think it's odd to say her place isn't on the Supreme Court because she has a criminal law background. She's been a federal judge for almost ten years and would have heard a variety of cases during that time. She also worked at a tort firm and clerked for Breyer and a 1st Circuit judge. I'm not really a fan of hers, but just saying.

---

"She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first Public defender on the high court."

This is the Post I responded to and gave my opinion in regard to a Candidate that is using Public Defender status as a differentiator in selecting a SC Justice. I just don't think that it is a big enough part of the job to select her because of that experience over other Candidates with similar and superior experience in an area the Court does more of its work.

---

Well, look at it this way - she'd be less than 14 percent of the Court. Not every player is a kicker, but when you need them you need them.

---

So you do believe that being a public defender is special enough skill set to separate her from the others on the list. A lack of criminal experience has been an issue on the US SC?

---

I believe a public defender would bring a welcome diversity of opinion. It's not criminal experience but the particular kind of criminal experience that's notable.

---

to the bold part, specifically support for Progressive activism.

That's all the Left cares about, Sam included.

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

Of course she is qualified. But if she were a Republican, we would have already heard ten reasons why she was not.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

May I ask what value her being a Public Defender brings to a Court with the following purpose?


"Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."

The criminal system is primarily the State system. So, if we were talking a State Supreme Court, I would fully agree and think she would make a good candidate, especially with her Public Defender background.

For the Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction of cases between States or involving ambassadors and other public ministers? Even the appellate jurisdiction involves constitutional or federal law. What percent of Federal Cases at the Supreme Court involve criminal? From what I can tell it comes down to a range of 2% to 14% of cases involve criminal.

So I ask you, is she the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice if her unique qualification at most will impact 14% of cases? Will she be over her head on the other 86%?

Nothing against her as a Justice, I might not agree with her positions, but she is a qualified, respected jurist. I just do not think that the Supreme Court is the right place for her. State Supreme Court, slam dunk. I actually think that is where she can do the most good.

---

SCOTUS rulings in criminal cases affects people all the time. It affects police interactions with citizens, who gets appointed counsel, etc. And stop in your local county courthouse or municipal court some day and see if your 17% figure holds. It won't.

---

You are making my case. County and Municipal are State courts. The State SC is where she is best qualified. US SC is not criminally based, Constitutional, inter-state. That is not her strength.

---

Criminal law is an important part of what SCOTUS does, including cases that come up from state supreme courts. When you talk about constitutional law, much of that is in the criminal area.

---

Check the numbers. You are correct that of what the States send to the SC it is mostly criminal. For the Roberts Court, 73% of the State cases sent to the SC are criminal related. So, what does that number represent of the SC's total work load???

But State cases reflect 10 to 20% of the SC typical work load. So, what is 73% of 20% = 14.6. I will give you the high end.

Does this mean there have never been more? No. Does it mean there will never be more? No.
All it means is if you are looking for the best qualified Jurist to be a SC Justice, criminal expertise is not what you look for. If you want to make a qualification fit, sure you can make Mr Magoo qualified, but not the best qualified.

---

Supreme Court justices need to have and do have a broad understanding of the law. There's no reason to assume she'd be out of her depth in other areas. Quash's point was simply that a public defender brings a different perspective and it's good to have a variety of backgrounds represented.

---

I did not say his position was wrong. I respected his opinion. I answered his question as to why someone would think she wasn't the best qualified. I gave my view, which it appears does not get the same respect as his and I have spent too much of my time defending why I don't think that Public Defense gives her any unique qualification. I even said where I thought her experience is best fitted. Why is it that is not enough?

---

I just think it's odd to say her place isn't on the Supreme Court because she has a criminal law background. She's been a federal judge for almost ten years and would have heard a variety of cases during that time. She also worked at a tort firm and clerked for Breyer and a 1st Circuit judge. I'm not really a fan of hers, but just saying.

---

"She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first Public defender on the high court."

This is the Post I responded to and gave my opinion in regard to a Candidate that is using Public Defender status as a differentiator in selecting a SC Justice. I just don't think that it is a big enough part of the job to select her because of that experience over other Candidates with similar and superior experience in an area the Court does more of its work.

---

Well, look at it this way - she'd be less than 14 percent of the Court. Not every player is a kicker, but when you need them you need them.

---

So you do believe that being a public defender is special enough skill set to separate her from the others on the list. A lack of criminal experience has been an issue on the US SC?

---

I believe a public defender would bring a welcome diversity of opinion. It's not criminal experience but the particular kind of criminal experience that's notable.

---

I do not think her PD experience outweighs her answers to the questions, her rulings,, and her lack of writings and would have me vote no.

This is the Supreme Court, we have the choice of literally every judge and judicial mind in America we do not need to force a fit.

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

May I ask what value her being a Public Defender brings to a Court with the following purpose?


"Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."

The criminal system is primarily the State system. So, if we were talking a State Supreme Court, I would fully agree and think she would make a good candidate, especially with her Public Defender background.

For the Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction of cases between States or involving ambassadors and other public ministers? Even the appellate jurisdiction involves constitutional or federal law. What percent of Federal Cases at the Supreme Court involve criminal? From what I can tell it comes down to a range of 2% to 14% of cases involve criminal.

So I ask you, is she the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice if her unique qualification at most will impact 14% of cases? Will she be over her head on the other 86%?

Nothing against her as a Justice, I might not agree with her positions, but she is a qualified, respected jurist. I just do not think that the Supreme Court is the right place for her. State Supreme Court, slam dunk. I actually think that is where she can do the most good.

---

SCOTUS rulings in criminal cases affects people all the time. It affects police interactions with citizens, who gets appointed counsel, etc. And stop in your local county courthouse or municipal court some day and see if your 17% figure holds. It won't.

---

You are making my case. County and Municipal are State courts. The State SC is where she is best qualified. US SC is not criminally based, Constitutional, inter-state. That is not her strength.

---

Criminal law is an important part of what SCOTUS does, including cases that come up from state supreme courts. When you talk about constitutional law, much of that is in the criminal area.

---

Check the numbers. You are correct that of what the States send to the SC it is mostly criminal. For the Roberts Court, 73% of the State cases sent to the SC are criminal related. So, what does that number represent of the SC's total work load???

But State cases reflect 10 to 20% of the SC typical work load. So, what is 73% of 20% = 14.6. I will give you the high end.

Does this mean there have never been more? No. Does it mean there will never be more? No.
All it means is if you are looking for the best qualified Jurist to be a SC Justice, criminal expertise is not what you look for. If you want to make a qualification fit, sure you can make Mr Magoo qualified, but not the best qualified.

---

Supreme Court justices need to have and do have a broad understanding of the law. There's no reason to assume she'd be out of her depth in other areas. Quash's point was simply that a public defender brings a different perspective and it's good to have a variety of backgrounds represented.

---

I did not say his position was wrong. I respected his opinion. I answered his question as to why someone would think she wasn't the best qualified. I gave my view, which it appears does not get the same respect as his and I have spent too much of my time defending why I don't think that Public Defense gives her any unique qualification. I even said where I thought her experience is best fitted. Why is it that is not enough?

---

I just think it's odd to say her place isn't on the Supreme Court because she has a criminal law background. She's been a federal judge for almost ten years and would have heard a variety of cases during that time. She also worked at a tort firm and clerked for Breyer and a 1st Circuit judge. I'm not really a fan of hers, but just saying.

---

"She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first Public defender on the high court."

This is the Post I responded to and gave my opinion in regard to a Candidate that is using Public Defender status as a differentiator in selecting a SC Justice. I just don't think that it is a big enough part of the job to select her because of that experience over other Candidates with similar and superior experience in an area the Court does more of its work.

---

Well, look at it this way - she'd be less than 14 percent of the Court. Not every player is a kicker, but when you need them you need them.

---

So you do believe that being a public defender is special enough skill set to separate her from the others on the list. A lack of criminal experience has been an issue on the US SC?

---

I believe a public defender would bring a welcome diversity of opinion. It's not criminal experience but the particular kind of criminal experience that's notable.

---

I do not think her PD experience outweighs her answers to the questions, her rulings,, and her lack of writings and would have me vote no.

This is the Supreme Court, we have the choice of literally every judge and judicial mind in America we do not need to force a fit.

---

You may be right. My point is just that criminal law is more important than the numbers may lead you to believe. The Bill of Rights is all about criminal law. Many of the hotly contested social issues, like abortion and religious liberty, involve criminal law too. I would probably disagree with most of Jackson's opinions on those issues, but they are a huge part of the Court's significance in our society now.

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

RMF5630 said:

---

quash said:

---

Canon said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Quash will never admit that the candidate is, by any reasonable standard, unfit for the seat she seeks.

---

Unfit? Make the case for her to unfitness.

---

She's been doing that herself since the hearings started.

Interesting you have not noticed, quash.

---

No. I asked you to make the case. Instead you went full Oldbear

---

Sit back, non-binary ret@rd, Uber driver, ponytail lawyer. Old bear hit the nail on the head. You haven't taken a stand since you learned to walk.

---

She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first



Public defender on the high court.

Now, back to making the case for rejecting her nomination. Oldbear and Canon have fled the field. Anyone else?

---

May I ask what value her being a Public Defender brings to a Court with the following purpose?


"Article III, Section II of the Constitution establishes the jurisdiction (legal ability to hear a case) of the Supreme Court. The Court has original jurisdiction (a case is tried before the Court) over certain cases, e.g., suits between two or more states and/or cases involving ambassadors and other public ministers. The Court has appellate jurisdiction (the Court can hear the case on appeal) on almost any other case that involves a point of constitutional and/or federal law."

The criminal system is primarily the State system. So, if we were talking a State Supreme Court, I would fully agree and think she would make a good candidate, especially with her Public Defender background.

For the Supreme Court, with original jurisdiction of cases between States or involving ambassadors and other public ministers? Even the appellate jurisdiction involves constitutional or federal law. What percent of Federal Cases at the Supreme Court involve criminal? From what I can tell it comes down to a range of 2% to 14% of cases involve criminal.

So I ask you, is she the most qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice if her unique qualification at most will impact 14% of cases? Will she be over her head on the other 86%?

Nothing against her as a Justice, I might not agree with her positions, but she is a qualified, respected jurist. I just do not think that the Supreme Court is the right place for her. State Supreme Court, slam dunk. I actually think that is where she can do the most good.

---

SCOTUS rulings in criminal cases affects people all the time. It affects police interactions with citizens, who gets appointed counsel, etc. And stop in your local county courthouse or municipal court some day and see if your 17% figure holds. It won't.

---

You are making my case. County and Municipal are State courts. The State SC is where she is best qualified. US SC is not criminally based, Constitutional, inter-state. That is not her strength.

---

Criminal law is an important part of what SCOTUS does, including cases that come up from state supreme courts. When you talk about constitutional law, much of that is in the criminal area.

---

Check the numbers. You are correct that of what the States send to the SC it is mostly criminal. For the Roberts Court, 73% of the State cases sent to the SC are criminal related. So, what does that number represent of the SC's total work load???

But State cases reflect 10 to 20% of the SC typical work load. So, what is 73% of 20% = 14.6. I will give you the high end.

Does this mean there have never been more? No. Does it mean there will never be more? No.
All it means is if you are looking for the best qualified Jurist to be a SC Justice, criminal expertise is not what you look for. If you want to make a qualification fit, sure you can make Mr Magoo qualified, but not the best qualified.

---

Supreme Court justices need to have and do have a broad understanding of the law. There's no reason to assume she'd be out of her depth in other areas. Quash's point was simply that a public defender brings a different perspective and it's good to have a variety of backgrounds represented.

---

I did not say his position was wrong. I respected his opinion. I answered his question as to why someone would think she wasn't the best qualified. I gave my view, which it appears does not get the same respect as his and I have spent too much of my time defending why I don't think that Public Defense gives her any unique qualification. I even said where I thought her experience is best fitted. Why is it that is not enough?

---

I just think it's odd to say her place isn't on the Supreme Court because she has a criminal law background. She's been a federal judge for almost ten years and would have heard a variety of cases during that time. She also worked at a tort firm and clerked for Breyer and a 1st Circuit judge. I'm not really a fan of hers, but just saying.

---

"She would bring a welcome diversity of opinion as the first Public defender on the high court."

This is the Post I responded to and gave my opinion in regard to a Candidate that is using Public Defender status as a differentiator in selecting a SC Justice. I just don't think that it is a big enough part of the job to select her because of that experience over other Candidates with similar and superior experience in an area the Court does more of its work.

---

Well, look at it this way - she'd be less than 14 percent of the Court. Not every player is a kicker, but when you need them you need them.

---

So you do believe that being a public defender is special enough skill set to separate her from the others on the list. A lack of criminal experience has been an issue on the US SC?

---

I believe a public defender would bring a welcome diversity of opinion. It's not criminal experience but the particular kind of criminal experience that's notable.

---

I do not think her PD experience outweighs her answers to the questions, her rulings,, and her lack of writings and would have me vote no.

This is the Supreme Court, we have the choice of literally every judge and judicial mind in America we do not need to force a fit.

---

You may be right. My point is just that criminal law is more important than the numbers may lead you to believe. The Bill of Rights is all about criminal law. Many of the hotly contested social issues, like abortion and religious liberty, involve criminal law too. I would probably disagree with most of Jackson's opinions on those issues, but they are a huge part of the Court's significance in our society now.

---

I would argue that at the State SC or Appelate level you are 100% correct. By the time a case gets to the US SC, we are talking about much higher level of law that impacts the US as a whole, not the particulars of procedure or nuance of State sentencing guidelines.

Public Defenders offices are churn and burn, the case loads are so high that it is more about process to make sure everyone gets the badics. My brother is a PD. His biggest complaint is PDs dont get to practice law there is no time. He says it is not like private sector criminal law where he got to develop law challenges. He is there because of a catastrophic divorce that shredded his career. He would get out today if someone offered him medical insurance. It is a horror show. But that is a State and local problem, not Federal.

I just don't see how his and the people he works with experience could be helpful for a US SC Justice. Actually, it the more I think about it. It has hindered his legal mind, not helped it.

GrowlTowel said:

---

She is nominated because she has a black vagina. That was the only qualification the president stated. Yet she cannot define what a vagina is. If she cannot qualify herself to the president's criteria, how can the senate vote?

---

If race was the only qualification why didn't he nominate Oprah or Candace Owens?

He instead put up someone with qualifications. Owens might have gotten 45 Republican votes and Oprah has name recognition. No need to waste time on someone highly qualified.

tommie said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

She is nominated because she has a black vagina. That was the only qualification the president stated. Yet she cannot define what a vagina is. If she cannot qualify herself to the president's criteria, how can the senate vote?

---

If race was the only qualification why didn't he nominate Oprah or Candace Owens?

He instead put up someone with qualifications. Owens might have gotten 45 Republican votes and Oprah has name recognition. No need to waste time on someone highly qualified.

---

No, instead he disqualified candidates based completely on the fact that they are not black and do not identify as a woman. Something that this woman cannot define. She is a fraud and a hack and has zero qualifications to serve on the court other than having a black vagina.

Call her BV.

Yamiche the Elf with the great take...

NBC's Yamiche Alcindor says Rand Paul's delayed vote on Ketanji Brown Jackson was "an unusual" and "unsettling development" that "remind[ed]" her of "conversations" with "Black woman who say they've had to navigate...hurdles...indignities in order to achieve what they want." pic.twitter.com/eUS246cGys

— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) April 7, 2022

She's 51 so we can expect to have 30 years or so of liberal judicial activism.

BearFan33 said:

---

She's 51 so we can expect to have 30 years or so of liberal judicial activism.

---

Hey, I don't mind her views, they are hers. She can believe what she wants.. Don't push it on me and rule by the law not an outcome she wants.