Supreme Court and abortion

[Ken]

It’s sad that biden/the DNC decided to choose a person they 100% knew would be deeply divisive.
Sad. Not surprising.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong about that. She is actually the least divisive nominee since Justice Roberts nearly 20 years ago.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has both substantially higher approval ratings and substantially lower disapproval ratings of any recent SCOTUS nominee.

According to Gallup which conducted the polling:

Initial public support for judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation to the Supreme Court ties as the highest Gallup has measured for any recent nominee. Fifty-eight percent of Americans say the Senate should vote in favor of Jackson serving on the Supreme Court. Only current Chief Justice John Roberts, at 59% in 2005, had a level of support on par with that for Jackson. Most other nominees had support in the low 50% range, with five below that mark.

Far more Americans approve of her nomination, and far fewer disapprove of her than any of Trump's three nominees, and by wide margins of 10+ points or more. Here are the actual numbers:

[temporal1]

Unfortunately, no career politician is going to commit career suicide by “offing” a nice looking “woman” like KBJ.
Is she or isn’t she? As well, there could be questions about “worse” if she was rejected.

No one wants to open the racism/misogeny cans of worms. (True, but not a good path.)

It’s already clear what happens when SJWs are appointed to these seats. It should be out of the question.

Time will tell.

[Ken]

Unfortunately, no career politician is going to commit career suicide by “offing” a nice looking “woman” like KBJ.
Is she or isn’t she? As well, there could be questions about “worse” if she was rejected.

No one wants to open the racism/misogeny cans of worms. (True, but not a good path.)

It’s already clear what happens when SJWs are appointed to these seats. It should be out of the question.

Time will tell.

What are you even talking about? "offing" a SCOTUS nominee?

They actually did take their best shot at her. It was unseemly and cringeworthy. And the American public strongly disapproved of their tactics: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... p-jackson/

At the start of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s Supreme Court hearings last week, Republicans made a solemn promise: They would not treat her as badly as Democrats had treated Brett M. Kavanaugh during his 2018 confirmation hearings — a set of circumstances Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) called “one of the lowest moments in the history of this [Senate Judiciary] committee.”

The reviews are in. And not only do Americans support Jackson’s confirmation significantly more than they supported other recent nominees — they also view Republicans’ handling of it about as poorly as they view Democrats’ handling of Kavanaugh, if not worse.

[temporal1]

offing / slang / reject

[Josh]

It’s sad that biden/the DNC decided to choose a person they 100% knew would be deeply divisive.
Sad. Not surprising.

Actually you couldn't be more wrong about that. She is actually the least divisive nominee since Justice Roberts nearly 20 years ago.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has both substantially higher approval ratings and substantially lower disapproval ratings of any recent SCOTUS nominee.

According to Gallup which conducted the polling:

Initial public support for judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation to the Supreme Court ties as the highest Gallup has measured for any recent nominee. Fifty-eight percent of Americans say the Senate should vote in favor of Jackson serving on the Supreme Court. Only current Chief Justice John Roberts, at 59% in 2005, had a level of support on par with that for Jackson. Most other nominees had support in the low 50% range, with five below that mark.

Far more Americans approve of her nomination, and far fewer disapprove of her than any of Trump's three nominees, and by wide margins of 10+ points or more. Here are the actual numbers:

It’s amazing the fantasy land you live in.

Do you really think people on the right are behind this nominee?

[temporal1]

Do you really think people on the right are behind this nominee?

i tried to respond, got this message:

Your IP 50.109.107.61 has been blocked because it is blacklisted. For details please see http://www.spamhaus.org/query/bl?ip=50.109.107.61.

not sure what this means. it looks ok. i’ll try again.

[temporal1]

Try again:

Josh:
Do you really think people on the right are behind this nominee?

i did not follow the hearings, i saw a few moments made public.

thing is, accepting a nomination based in good part that one IS a woman, while CLAIMING to not know the definition of a woman, to further state this question requires a BIOLOGIST, should NOT be a left-right question.

KBJ deferred to a biologist,
a BIOLOGIST (scientist) would, by definition, be required to state physical facts, not lib academic fantasies, mental gymnastics.

the same regarding abortion. science recognizes distinct human life at conception.

these matters, alone, “scream” SJW (emotions, dreams) not clear-headed thinking needed in courts of law -
that ALL, not just politically organized minority interests, depend upon.

the U.S. has become so groomed for the “tail wagging the dog,” it’s lost its way. extreme minority rule.

it all began with THE BEST INTENTIONS. over decades, twisted beyond recognition.

i feel sorry for KBJ. no doubt she’s brilliant. she’s accomplished a lot.

in a healthy world, with her refusal to accept science over politics, she would not be a viable candidate for SCOTUS.
i won’t say her inability to understand science. it’s her conscious refusal of science for personal preference of politics.

science is NOT political. science does not take sides.

the public should not allow organized political blocs the power to make FACTS/TRUTH political.
they will NOT stop on their own. the public must wake up and refuse to buy into it.

[Ken]

It’s amazing the fantasy land you live in.

Do you really think people on the right are behind this nominee?

Or perhaps it is culture warriors on the right who are living in fantasy land if they think their delusional rantings are supported by the American People. Here is Ted Cruz using his hearing time not to ask questions about judicial philosophy or points of law relevant to the Constitution and Supreme Court. But to rant about a children's book that happens to be in the school library where Brown Jackson's children attended. As if that has the slightest relevance to the proceedings at hand. Most Americans are smart enough to see this nonsense for what it is.

Partisans on the right are going to attack any Democratic nominee no matter who it is. But elections have consequences and this is one of them. And on balance, Brown Jackson is viewed considerably more favorably by the American public than any of Trump's nominees. So objectively she is less divisive. If partisans on the right were actually concerned in the slightest about "divisive" SCOTUS nominees they would not have abandoned the judicial filibuster for SCOTUS nominees when Trump came into office. There were likely many nominees that Trump could have made who would have gained Democratic votes. They didn't even try, choosing instead to ram his three nominees through on party-line votes. Something that had never been done before in the history of SCOTUS nominees. And that is where we are.

[Josh]

Ken, this nominee won’t define what a woman is. Do you think most Americans are on the side of the radical transsexual agenda?

[temporal1]

.. this nominee won’t define what a woman is.
Do you think most Americans are on the side of the radical transsexual agenda?

As Robert observes, attacking the messenger (instead of answering direct questions) is an effective distraction.

Mob mentality has nothing to do with facts, science, truth, or Truth. It’s just mob mentality.
Something civilizations have attempted to move beyond. The call of the Sirens.

Ancient strategy
“You Dare to Bring Me This News, Messenger. This is Sparta!” ..
https://stevemehta.wordpress.com/2011/0 ... is-sparta/