What do right-wing extremists have to do with anything? Who is the right-wing extremist I am allegedly defending in this story? Jennifer Rubin made a snarky comment about how Rs are going to "intentionally" mispronounce the judge's name (as though everyone in America should automatically know how to pronounce Katanji, clearly a name everyone in the English-speaking world has experienced for decades so any mispronunciation must be racism). Someone else doubled down, saying it would be either Rand Paul or Senator Foghorn Leghorn (clearly not using a stereotype, must have been an accidental misspelling of John Kennedy or Bill Cassidy). Then super woke White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki tweets a misspelling of the judge's name the same day of her nomination. It is just funny. No one (certainly not I) is suggesting that Psaki was doing it intentionally, for political purposes or otherwise. It was just comical that the very person responsible for announcing the nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the SCOTUS misspelled her name right after her political ally wrote that Rs would mispronounce the same name and that ohbytheway, when they do so it will be intentional and racist. Not everything has to be a political maneuver. Some things are just funny.
Are you seriously suggesting republicans don't intentionally mispronounce names for political purposes? Like republican senator david perdue mocking candidate VP Kamala Harris at a trump rally? This despite having served in the senate with her for years. Or how about the continual mispronunciation of former President Obama's name. And the mocking emphasis of his middle name (with a transparent effort to connect the President with Middle Eastern terrorism). But your defense for things like this? "Super Woke". And efforts to misapply "whataboutisms". And worse, "some things are just funny". .
I was making no suggestion on the topic one way or the other. Since you ask, I would say people intentionally mispronounce names for political purposes, regardless of party. People also do it for comedic purposes (whether or not it is actually funny) regardless of party. You may remember former speaker of the house John Boehner (correctly pronounced BAY-ner). I am not familiar with the incident. Given the quote, he was clearly intentionally mispronouncing her name, as he obviously doesn't think her correct name is Kamala-mala-mala. Many people also unintentionally mispronounce her name, as it is not a name most Americans are familiar with. Yes, as stated above, this is not uncommon. Defense for what? Mispronouncing people's names? Whataboutisms are just pointing out hypocrisy, it is a made of term because people don't like being called out. Are you now complaining about the existence of humor? Going back to the original question, since you tried to dodge it, who is the right-wing extremist I was allegedly defending in my post?
Riiiiiight, because had she “beaten out a field of all potential candidates”, republicans would have said she earned it. Republicans would absolutely not be saying that the fix was in all along, the process was sham, and Biden should have just been honest and said he was going to pick a black woman instead of wasting all the other candidates time, lying through his teeth to all of our faces that he was considering everyone, and Biden is a racist sone of a beech. AmIRite?
As predicted Biden picks a very qualified candidate. While Biden had pledged to pick a black woman it was never going to be any black woman no matter the qualifications. He wasn't going to pick Rihanna or Whoopi Goldberg just because they are black women. All the arguments that Biden was putting race and gender over qualifications were and are hollow.
The people adamantly against this are basically saying "no such thing as a qualified black woman for SC justice".
Intentionally mispronouncing Ms. Jackson's name is childish. Name-calling and attacks on a judge's/politician's personal life or family (not related to business or politics) are terrible and should not happen by any professional. I will make no accusation that Ms. Jackson is not qualified for consideration for SCJ. I also re-state that excluding others because of their skin color or ethnicity is, by definition, an act of prejudice by Joe Biden. Ronald Reagan's exclusion of candidates based on their gender was an act of prejudice. Sri Srinivasan also is an excellent judge who should have been considered for SCJ (and was considered for SCJ by Obama). Is he more/less qualified than KBJ? Maybe. Maybe not. Doesn't matter - he was excluded from consideration because of Biden's prejudice (Sri is from India and isn't black... and he's not female). 42 years later and our president is still openly and unapologetically prejudiced. Unbelievable.
too bad you didn't read what Turley actually wrote . . . I don't think he disagrees with the statement "Reality is, Jackson is well-qualified." here is the relevant excerpt: With a sterling academic and professional resume, she deserved a much better framing and timing for her nomination. Jackson always has been the front-runner in this process. Activist groups such as Demand Justice, which has led efforts to pack the court and to hound Justice Stephen Breyer into retiring, pushed her nomination while opposing Judge Childs, whom they considered too moderate and tough on crime. This concerted opposition campaign, which included the Our Revolution group aligned with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), painted Childs as anti-union and pro-employer too. While these advocates and others all agreed that Jackson was the best choice, they have not explained clearly why. NBC News declared that “Jackson fits well with the Democratic Party and the progressive movement’s agenda.” Yet the confirmation process is designed to guarantee that we do not have wink-and-a-nod nominations where agendas are to be fulfilled but not discussed. Jackson has an extremely limited written record to review — something considered an advantage for a nominee. Most of her district court opinions are not very illustrative of her views or approach to the law. She did write several very long opinions as a district court judge but has only one published opinion as an appellate judge. That opinion, a win for unions against a federal agency, was released roughly 24 hours before her nomination. She has remarkably little else written beyond these limited opinions. Liberals want a justice who is willing to expand the meaning of the Constitution without constitutional amendments. President Biden stressed that his nominee must follow a “living constitution” approach, including a broad view of “unenumerated rights.” When asked if she supported such an approach, Childs answered “no.” Jackson, in contrast, has been far more obscure and conflicted in her response. When she was nominated for the district court, Jackson answered “no” to that question. However, when nominated for the appellate court (and widely discussed as a future Supreme Court nominee), she became more evasive and, frankly, baffling in her answer: She told the Senate that she simply did not have experience with such interpretations as a judge. It was a bizarre response since the question concerned her judicial philosophy. After all, Jackson has a distinguished academic background and a long career in legal practice. She is clearly familiar with this core concept of liberal constitutional interpretation. (Her answer reminded some of us of when Justice Clarence Thomas testified that he really had not thought much about Roe v. Wade.) Her answer also made little sense since she had no difficulty responding to the question in her prior confirmation. When again pressed on the issue, Jackson’s position became unintelligible. She told the Senate that she is “bound by the methods of constitutional interpretation that the Supreme Court has adopted, and I have a duty not to opine on the Supreme Court’s chosen methodology or suggest that I would undertake to interpret the text of the Constitution in any manner other than as the Supreme Court has directed.” That answer was mystifying. She is bound to follow the precedents of the Supreme Court — but she is allowed to have her own philosophy on constitutional interpretation, and other judges have answered the same question. Indeed, past nominees have gone into some detail on their approaches to interpreting the Constitution while avoiding how they would rule on particular cases. Justice Amy Coney Barrett not only refuted the premise of the living constitution theory but expressly embraced an originalist interpretative approach. What is known is that Jackson has faced pushback for exceeding her constitutionally or statutorily defined role in cases. For example, in 2019, she wrote a lengthy opinion in Make the Road New York v. McAleenan in favor of immigration groups challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s expansion of the expedited-removal process to the statutory limit. Jackson surprisingly ruled that she had authority to enjoin the policy despite a federal law stating the question was left to the “sole and unreviewable discretion” of the agency. The D.C. Circuit reversed Judge Jackson as exercising considerable judicial overreach. The lone judge in dissent did not find in Jackson’s favor but instead cited her for a different error in exercising jurisdiction over the challenge. Judge Jackson also was accused of judicial overreach in American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump in 2018, when she stopped the Trump administration from implementing provisions limiting the ability of federal workers’ unions to collectively bargain. Noting that Jackson was a prospective choice for the Supreme Court, The Washington Post heralded the ruling as a major victory for unions. However, a unanimous ruling by the D.C. Circuit held that Jackson lacked jurisdiction to decide the case because the statute clearly mandates such challenges must be brought first in the agency process and that judicial review is then available in the courts of appeals. Those reversals evidence a more fluid approach to statutory interpretation that even more liberal judges found to be beyond the pale. While confirmation hearings often are reduced to little more than political kabuki theatre, Jackson’s hearing will be far more important because of the lack of information about her views on key issues. She has a fraction of the written record of nominees such as Barrett or Justice Neil Gorsuch. In the end, Judge Jackson is likely to be confirmed. But her confirmation should be based on advice and consent, not a wink and a nod.
Ya butt, she black. I know all the canditates as xpert, and I know no blacks. Ergo, no black women are qualified. That swine of a president is soracist
I think you and I have very different ideas if what 'prejudice' means. To me, never having a black woman, a major demographic of America, in our 200+ year history ever reach the levels of SC justice is the prejudice part and finding a qualified black woman to fill a SC justice vacancy as a remedy for the actual prejudice part.
The nomination is done. Some people didn't like how it went down, fine. I'd like to move on to the confirmation. Is there any good argument out there that she shouldn't be confirmed? I haven't seen any.
Which falls under the umbrella of "black" because I doubt those who asked that question (Carlson) ever asked that question for any other nominee. And the reason he asked is because he thinks any successful black person academics wise is a product of affirmative action rather than actual merit.
