Republicans on the board: Would you vote for Judge Jackson on the Supreme Court?

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
25,610
41,522
1
Thank you. These guys are clueless.
No we are not clueless, you two are disingenuous. Asking what a woman is does not involve precedent. Not knowing your own sentencing, having time to research it, then lying again, that's not precedent. Both of you do nothing but spout jibberishh for politics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roswelllion

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
4,124
6,599
1
My friends. I don't know if I'd vote for her or not. She does have more diverse legal background than all the SC justices. I do have concerns on her judgement involving cases of sexual abuse against women and child pornography. Her approach to punishment of these crimes is weak. She would not take away the use of computers from child predators. That's disturbing. I just feel that she lacks the necessary compassion for victims of crimes. A major issue in today's society.

There is nothing less important than having a diverse legal background.

Seriously. You lawyer types make me laugh.

We need smart, seriously smart, people ruling on the constitutionality of laws.

Not people who might be more or less sympathetic to a given point of view.

The constitution is clear and is further clarified by the federalist and anti-federalist papers. We just need people smart enough to not fall for the nonsense that the activist lawyers throw out there.
 

Obliviax

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Aug 21, 2001
107,147
55,988
1
She done really well. She is tiptoeing around wokness. Great trap in "defining a woman" and then asking how she can role over gender-based cases such as title IX, payroll equity, etc.
 

fbh1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,609
687
1
74
Bellefonte, PA
For any one that is interested... This came out in the NY Times today. Unfortunately we now live in a time that it really doesn't matter what the truth is. A person as well as their reputation can and often will be smeared and distorted with a few simple statements and lies that may in fact be untrue. Whether Jackson is qualified or not doesn't seem to be the issue. Senators like Cruz and Hawley really have no other intention of learning about her actual legal qualifications... they just want to find some reason either real or imagined to totally discredit her. I realize that it has now part of the political game but it has become a sad commentary about what the whole process has become. From what I have heard so far... I would definitely support her nomination, For some of you on this board that actually swallow a lot of the bs that is being spewed I feel sorry for you for being so gullible.



Distorted reality​

Here are a few facts about Ketanji Brown Jackson:​
  • She frequently associates herself with a patriotic narrative of American history. “The first of my many blessings,” she told the Senate this week, “is the fact that I was born in this great nation.”
  • She is not an advocate of critical race theory or other progressive ideas about education. She has never taken a public position on hot-button school issues like whether young children should be taught about gender identity.
  • As a federal judge, she has a mainstream record, broadly typical of a Democratic nominee. She has often praised law enforcement, including her proud mention this week that her brother and two of her uncles worked as police officers.
You might not know any of this — you might well believe the opposite — if you spent the past few days listening to Republican senators or consuming many conservative media sources.​
Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing has turned into a case study of how disconnected from reality large parts of the Republican ecosystem have become. I know that description sounds harsh and will bother some conservative readers. But I think the facts warrant it.​

Birtherism to pornography​

The debate over Jackson’s nomination has often had little to do with her. It has become an argument over a nominee who does not exist — one who does not respect America, is not truly religious, coddles child abusers and terrorists and has highly developed views about the importance of “woke” education. Yesterday, conservative activists used this portrayal to pressure moderate Democratic senators to vote against Jackson.​
Conspiracy theories and unfair accusations have a long history in American politics, of course. But they have often remained on the margins. Today, distortions and falsehoods have moved to the center of politics.​
While neither party is entirely innocent, there is a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats. False claims regularly flow from the leaders of the Republican Party — including its most recent president, several of its likely future presidential candidates and the most influential media figures aligned with the party.​
Donald Trump began his political career by claiming that Barack Obama was born in Africa and ended his presidency with false accusations of voter fraud. Prominent Republicans regularly cast doubt on the fact that greenhouse gases are warming the planet and contributing to extreme weather. Disinformation about Covid-19 vaccines has been so widespread that almost 40 percent of Republican adults have not received a shot, sometimes with fatal consequences.​
There is no comparable list of false information coming from senior members of the Democratic Party.​
mail
Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, presenting details of Judge Jackson’s sentencing history.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York Times​
The Jackson hearings have become the latest example. Several Republican senators — including Josh Hawley, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz yesterday — have tried to portray her as soft on child pornographers. Their argument depends on a misleading cherry-picking of facts from cases she has heard.​
A useful debunking appeared this week in National Review, the conservative magazine, written by Andrew McCarthy, a former prosecutor who noted that he disagreed with Jackson on many legal matters. McCarthy also wrote that Hawley’s accusations were “meritless to the point of demagoguery” and “a smear.” Senator Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, has pointed out that some Trump nominees had a similar record as Jackson in child-pornography cases, and that Hawley voted to confirm them.​
Woke education has become another focus of the hearings, with Republicans like Cruz and Marsha Blackburn trying to portray Jackson as an advocate for it. In truth, she has not taken a position on the issues that fall under that category. Her sole — tenuous — connection to them is serving on the board of Georgetown Day School, an elite private school in Washington.​
That was apparently enough for the Republican National Committee to tweet an image of her this week, with her initials — KBJ — crossed out and replaced with CRT, an abbreviation for critical race theory. (Much of the Republican criticism of Jackson probably would have applied to any nominee, regardless of race, but it is hard to imagine the same tweet about a white judge.)​
The only time Jackson appears to have mentioned critical race theory publicly was in a 2015 speech. It was part of a list of disciplines that she said had an intellectual connection to criminal sentencing, including administrative law, philosophy, psychology and statistics.​

A fairer critique​

To be fair, Republicans are correct that many of the broader issues are legitimate matters of public debate. And on some of them, Republicans can make a credible case that progressive Democrats are to the left of public opinion (as Thomas Edsall, a Times Opinion columnist, explains).​
Most Americans oppose cutting police budgets, for instance. Many believe that allowing all transgender girls to compete in girls’ sports can be unfair to other girls. Many voters — and not just white voters — think that liberals focus too much on racial identity. Most Americans feel proud of the country and its symbols, including those that some progressives consider racist, like Thanksgiving, the Constitution, the flag and George Washington.​
But in trying to make Jackson a stand-in for these views, Republican senators are distorting reality. They are creating a caricature of a liberal Democrat that bears little resemblance to Jackson herself.​
“One thing that is striking about this hearing,” Lori Ringhand, a legal scholar, told The Times, “is how little effort we are seeing to engage the nominee on her views about actual legal issues.”​

More on the hearings​

  • After hours of patiently responding to accusations, Jackson displayed some pique at Hawley’s focus on pornography and later dabbed her eyes as Senator Cory Booker praised her life story.
  • A few Republican senators, including John Cornyn and Mike Lee, took a different approach, turning down the temperature to ask substantive questions.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
4,124
6,599
1
For any one that is interested... This came out in the NY Times today. Unfortunately we now live in a time that it really doesn't matter what the truth is. A person as well as their reputation can and often will be smeared and distorted with a few simple statements and lies that may in fact be untrue. Whether Jackson is qualified or not doesn't seem to be the issue. Senators like Cruz and Hawley really have no other intention of learning about her actual legal qualifications... they just want to find some reason either real or imagined to totally discredit her. I realize that it has now part of the political game but it has become a sad commentary about what the whole process has become. From what I have heard so far... I would definitely support her nomination, For some of you on this board that actually swallow a lot of the bs that is being spewed I feel sorry for you for being so gullible.



Distorted reality​

Here are a few facts about Ketanji Brown Jackson:​
  • She frequently associates herself with a patriotic narrative of American history. “The first of my many blessings,” she told the Senate this week, “is the fact that I was born in this great nation.”
  • She is not an advocate of critical race theory or other progressive ideas about education. She has never taken a public position on hot-button school issues like whether young children should be taught about gender identity.
  • As a federal judge, she has a mainstream record, broadly typical of a Democratic nominee. She has often praised law enforcement, including her proud mention this week that her brother and two of her uncles worked as police officers.
You might not know any of this — you might well believe the opposite — if you spent the past few days listening to Republican senators or consuming many conservative media sources.​
Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing has turned into a case study of how disconnected from reality large parts of the Republican ecosystem have become. I know that description sounds harsh and will bother some conservative readers. But I think the facts warrant it.​

Birtherism to pornography​

The debate over Jackson’s nomination has often had little to do with her. It has become an argument over a nominee who does not exist — one who does not respect America, is not truly religious, coddles child abusers and terrorists and has highly developed views about the importance of “woke” education. Yesterday, conservative activists used this portrayal to pressure moderate Democratic senators to vote against Jackson.​
Conspiracy theories and unfair accusations have a long history in American politics, of course. But they have often remained on the margins. Today, distortions and falsehoods have moved to the center of politics.​
While neither party is entirely innocent, there is a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats. False claims regularly flow from the leaders of the Republican Party — including its most recent president, several of its likely future presidential candidates and the most influential media figures aligned with the party.​
Donald Trump began his political career by claiming that Barack Obama was born in Africa and ended his presidency with false accusations of voter fraud. Prominent Republicans regularly cast doubt on the fact that greenhouse gases are warming the planet and contributing to extreme weather. Disinformation about Covid-19 vaccines has been so widespread that almost 40 percent of Republican adults have not received a shot, sometimes with fatal consequences.​
There is no comparable list of false information coming from senior members of the Democratic Party.​
mail
Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, presenting details of Judge Jackson’s sentencing history.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York Times​
The Jackson hearings have become the latest example. Several Republican senators — including Josh Hawley, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz yesterday — have tried to portray her as soft on child pornographers. Their argument depends on a misleading cherry-picking of facts from cases she has heard.​
A useful debunking appeared this week in National Review, the conservative magazine, written by Andrew McCarthy, a former prosecutor who noted that he disagreed with Jackson on many legal matters. McCarthy also wrote that Hawley’s accusations were “meritless to the point of demagoguery” and “a smear.” Senator Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, has pointed out that some Trump nominees had a similar record as Jackson in child-pornography cases, and that Hawley voted to confirm them.​
Woke education has become another focus of the hearings, with Republicans like Cruz and Marsha Blackburn trying to portray Jackson as an advocate for it. In truth, she has not taken a position on the issues that fall under that category. Her sole — tenuous — connection to them is serving on the board of Georgetown Day School, an elite private school in Washington.​
That was apparently enough for the Republican National Committee to tweet an image of her this week, with her initials — KBJ — crossed out and replaced with CRT, an abbreviation for critical race theory. (Much of the Republican criticism of Jackson probably would have applied to any nominee, regardless of race, but it is hard to imagine the same tweet about a white judge.)​
The only time Jackson appears to have mentioned critical race theory publicly was in a 2015 speech. It was part of a list of disciplines that she said had an intellectual connection to criminal sentencing, including administrative law, philosophy, psychology and statistics.​

A fairer critique​

To be fair, Republicans are correct that many of the broader issues are legitimate matters of public debate. And on some of them, Republicans can make a credible case that progressive Democrats are to the left of public opinion (as Thomas Edsall, a Times Opinion columnist, explains).​
Most Americans oppose cutting police budgets, for instance. Many believe that allowing all transgender girls to compete in girls’ sports can be unfair to other girls. Many voters — and not just white voters — think that liberals focus too much on racial identity. Most Americans feel proud of the country and its symbols, including those that some progressives consider racist, like Thanksgiving, the Constitution, the flag and George Washington.​
But in trying to make Jackson a stand-in for these views, Republican senators are distorting reality. They are creating a caricature of a liberal Democrat that bears little resemblance to Jackson herself.​
“One thing that is striking about this hearing,” Lori Ringhand, a legal scholar, told The Times, “is how little effort we are seeing to engage the nominee on her views about actual legal issues.”​

More on the hearings​

  • After hours of patiently responding to accusations, Jackson displayed some pique at Hawley’s focus on pornography and later dabbed her eyes as Senator Cory Booker praised her life story.
  • A few Republican senators, including John Cornyn and Mike Lee, took a different approach, turning down the temperature to ask substantive questions.
The days whereby the NYTimes and other jurnlists influence people's opinions are over. We can see with our own eyes, and judge for ourselves (although censorship makes this harder, it is still WAY, WAY easier than before).

We see her responses with our own eyes.

She is clearly, and without dispute, soft on sex crimes. It is strange. No idea why she would be lenient on that issue. Alan Dershowitz is also very lenient on these things. And I do not dispute that Dershowitz is pretty smart. I would accept Dershowitz as a SCJ, even though his latest argument that "you can change gender" is really not true. After such gender reassignment, you can't have children biologically, one of the defining reasons gender exists in nature (sure there are lots of people who cannot have children due to medical or genetic conditions, but that doesn't detract from the general natural definition).

If she wants her "legal qualifications" to be debated, then she can release her SAT, LSAT, and transcripts. Then we can debate her intelligence and capabilities.

Without it, there is no reasonable way to judge.
 
Last edited:

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
11,525
5,748
1
Have you ever watched one of these confirmation hearings before? They rarely answer any questions from the opposing party. What she did was completely standard protocol for these things.

You need to understand where he’s coming from. He thinks his state school degree from the 80’s makes him smart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

The Spin Meister

Well-Known Member
Nov 27, 2012
23,591
26,890
1
An altered state
For any one that is interested... This came out in the NY Times today. Unfortunately we now live in a time that it really doesn't matter what the truth is. A person as well as their reputation can and often will be smeared and distorted with a few simple statements and lies that may in fact be untrue. Whether Jackson is qualified or not doesn't seem to be the issue. Senators like Cruz and Hawley really have no other intention of learning about her actual legal qualifications... they just want to find some reason either real or imagined to totally discredit her. I realize that it has now part of the political game but it has become a sad commentary about what the whole process has become. From what I have heard so far... I would definitely support her nomination, For some of you on this board that actually swallow a lot of the bs that is being spewed I feel sorry for you for being so gullible.



Distorted reality​

Here are a few facts about Ketanji Brown Jackson:​
  • She frequently associates herself with a patriotic narrative of American history. “The first of my many blessings,” she told the Senate this week, “is the fact that I was born in this great nation.”
  • She is not an advocate of critical race theory or other progressive ideas about education. She has never taken a public position on hot-button school issues like whether young children should be taught about gender identity.
  • As a federal judge, she has a mainstream record, broadly typical of a Democratic nominee. She has often praised law enforcement, including her proud mention this week that her brother and two of her uncles worked as police officers.
You might not know any of this — you might well believe the opposite — if you spent the past few days listening to Republican senators or consuming many conservative media sources.​
Jackson’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing has turned into a case study of how disconnected from reality large parts of the Republican ecosystem have become. I know that description sounds harsh and will bother some conservative readers. But I think the facts warrant it.​

Birtherism to pornography​

The debate over Jackson’s nomination has often had little to do with her. It has become an argument over a nominee who does not exist — one who does not respect America, is not truly religious, coddles child abusers and terrorists and has highly developed views about the importance of “woke” education. Yesterday, conservative activists used this portrayal to pressure moderate Democratic senators to vote against Jackson.​
Conspiracy theories and unfair accusations have a long history in American politics, of course. But they have often remained on the margins. Today, distortions and falsehoods have moved to the center of politics.​
While neither party is entirely innocent, there is a fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats. False claims regularly flow from the leaders of the Republican Party — including its most recent president, several of its likely future presidential candidates and the most influential media figures aligned with the party.​
Donald Trump began his political career by claiming that Barack Obama was born in Africa and ended his presidency with false accusations of voter fraud. Prominent Republicans regularly cast doubt on the fact that greenhouse gases are warming the planet and contributing to extreme weather. Disinformation about Covid-19 vaccines has been so widespread that almost 40 percent of Republican adults have not received a shot, sometimes with fatal consequences.​
There is no comparable list of false information coming from senior members of the Democratic Party.​
mail
Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, presenting details of Judge Jackson’s sentencing history.Sarahbeth Maney/The New York Times​
The Jackson hearings have become the latest example. Several Republican senators — including Josh Hawley, Lindsey Graham and Ted Cruz yesterday — have tried to portray her as soft on child pornographers. Their argument depends on a misleading cherry-picking of facts from cases she has heard.​
A useful debunking appeared this week in National Review, the conservative magazine, written by Andrew McCarthy, a former prosecutor who noted that he disagreed with Jackson on many legal matters. McCarthy also wrote that Hawley’s accusations were “meritless to the point of demagoguery” and “a smear.” Senator Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, has pointed out that some Trump nominees had a similar record as Jackson in child-pornography cases, and that Hawley voted to confirm them.​
Woke education has become another focus of the hearings, with Republicans like Cruz and Marsha Blackburn trying to portray Jackson as an advocate for it. In truth, she has not taken a position on the issues that fall under that category. Her sole — tenuous — connection to them is serving on the board of Georgetown Day School, an elite private school in Washington.​
That was apparently enough for the Republican National Committee to tweet an image of her this week, with her initials — KBJ — crossed out and replaced with CRT, an abbreviation for critical race theory. (Much of the Republican criticism of Jackson probably would have applied to any nominee, regardless of race, but it is hard to imagine the same tweet about a white judge.)​
The only time Jackson appears to have mentioned critical race theory publicly was in a 2015 speech. It was part of a list of disciplines that she said had an intellectual connection to criminal sentencing, including administrative law, philosophy, psychology and statistics.​

A fairer critique​

To be fair, Republicans are correct that many of the broader issues are legitimate matters of public debate. And on some of them, Republicans can make a credible case that progressive Democrats are to the left of public opinion (as Thomas Edsall, a Times Opinion columnist, explains).​
Most Americans oppose cutting police budgets, for instance. Many believe that allowing all transgender girls to compete in girls’ sports can be unfair to other girls. Many voters — and not just white voters — think that liberals focus too much on racial identity. Most Americans feel proud of the country and its symbols, including those that some progressives consider racist, like Thanksgiving, the Constitution, the flag and George Washington.​
But in trying to make Jackson a stand-in for these views, Republican senators are distorting reality. They are creating a caricature of a liberal Democrat that bears little resemblance to Jackson herself.​
“One thing that is striking about this hearing,” Lori Ringhand, a legal scholar, told The Times, “is how little effort we are seeing to engage the nominee on her views about actual legal issues.”​

More on the hearings​

  • After hours of patiently responding to accusations, Jackson displayed some pique at Hawley’s focus on pornography and later dabbed her eyes as Senator Cory Booker praised her life story.
  • A few Republican senators, including John Cornyn and Mike Lee, took a different approach, turning down the temperature to ask substantive questions.
Stopped reading when I got to the following piece of absolute, massive, disingenuous garbage.

There is no comparable list of false information coming from senior members of the Democratic Party
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUEngineer89

Alphalion75

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2001
17,139
5,411
1
Alpharetta, GA
Yes, my friends, these judicial nominee hearings have become political battlefields and the Republican Senators are fully engaged. However, I have not seen the vicious character assassinations that were leveled against Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh. The conduct of the committee during those hearings was despicable.
 

psuted

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 26, 2010
27,009
22,090
1
After being on this board awhile I have the sense of the people that lean to the right and left here. I am very curious on how the republicans on this board feel confirmation hearings the past few days.

Would you vote for her if you were on the Supreme Court today?

What is your honest opinion or how Cruz, Hawley, Cotton, some others handled themselves here?

She is obviously very intelligent and for the most part held her composure throughout some rough waters. I just assume democrats in general are softer on sentenacing (as witnessed in the past year w crime waves and letting criminals out early or on low bail), but think this woulda been the case regardless.

Hell no, I’d be looking into her HS yearbook to find defamatory information about her so I could manufacture some derogatory narrative that can be used to smear her character personally.
 

fbh1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,609
687
1
74
Bellefonte, PA
The days whereby the NYTimes and other jurnlists influence people's opinions are over. We can see with our own eyes, and judge for ourselves (although censorship makes this harder, it is still WAY, WAY easier than before).

We see her responses with our own eyes.

She is clearly, and without dispute, soft on sex crimes. It is strange. No idea why she would be lenient on that issue. Alan Dershowitz is also very lenient on these things. And I do not dispute that Dershowitz is pretty smart. I would accept Dershowitz as a SCJ, even though his latest argument that "you can change gender" is really not true. After such gender reassignment, you can't have children biologically, one of the defining reasons gender exists in nature (sure there are lots of people who cannot have children due to medical or genetic conditions, but that doesn't detract from the general natural definition).

If she wants her "legal qualifications" to be debated, then she can release her SAT, LSAT, and transcripts. Then we can debate her intelligence and capabilities.

Without it, there is no reasonable way to judge.
I'll say this... it is easy to cherry pick through all of her decisions and come up with what you want to prove about her. you don't know any or all of the circumstances behind any of those decision. From what I have read about her, she has been fairly well respected for her rulings and decisions. As far as her SAT's and LSATs go... of what significance would they be? She made it through Harvard law school... that tells me how smart and determined she must be. If documents and scores like that are important why were you willing to let your buddy Trump off the hook when he refused (and still does) to release his tax forms? That's something that every presidential candidate has done in the past. Sorry but I couldn't help but make this analogy even if its not consistent with scores on college and law school entry exams. Besides, especially with SAT's, they don't prove much of anything... that's why a lot of schools don't use them anymore.
.
Finally, in the past I have watched other proceedings such as Barrett, Thomas, etc. They all avoid certain types of questions so that they don't create issues for future rulings... if they happened to be confirmed. It should be easy enough for you to understand why. Even a simple question like the one about what she considers a woman is... could come back to haunt her if she ever had to make a ruling on a transgender rights case if it got to the Supreme Court.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU and MaconNitt

fbh1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,609
687
1
74
Bellefonte, PA
Stopped reading when I got to the following piece of absolute, massive, disingenuous garbage.

There is no comparable list of false information coming from senior members of the Democratic Party
I would agree that the article could have included some of the lies that the democrats have made. As far as I'm concerned, Trump perfected the practice of making false statements to a new level... but both parties do it. I don't think that was supposed to be the main point being made in the article. A lot of misleading statements are being made about a qualified nominee,,, That I agree with...

These hearings are nothing but BS... They are not intended to really investigate the qualifications of nominees...they are held in order for each party to find a way to discredit any and all qualified candidates if they have been nominated by the other party. I feel badly for the candidates that have to put up with the process. In this case, I do not believe Judge Jackson deserves the harsh treatment she is receiving... just as I believe that Barret didn't deserve it either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaconNitt

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
4,124
6,599
1
I'll say this... it is easy to cherry pick through all of her decisions and come up with what you want to prove about her. you don't know any or all of the circumstances behind any of those decision. From what I have read about her, she has been fairly well respected for her rulings and decisions. As far as her SAT's and LSATs go... of what significance would they be? She made it through Harvard law school... that tells me how smart and determined she must be. If documents and scores like that are important why were you willing to let your buddy Trump off the hook when he refused (and still does) to release his tax forms? That's something that every presidential candidate has done in the past. Sorry but I couldn't help but make this analogy even if its not consistent with scores on college and law school entry exams. Besides, especially with SAT's, they don't prove much of anything... that's why a lot of schools don't use them anymore.
.
Finally, in the past I have watched other proceedings such as Barrett, Thomas, etc. They all avoid certain types of questions so that they don't create issues for future rulings... if they happened to be confirmed. It should be easy enough for you to understand why. Even a simple question like the one about what she considers a woman is... could come back to haunt her if she ever had to make a ruling on a transgender rights case if it got to the Supreme Court.
I agree that you could cherry pick any judge's rulings. I do agree with that.

Harvard law school means very little to me because I know they knock down requirements now. It isn't like she's got a degree from MIT in physics.

But on the SAT/LSAT - you're aware that the SAT used to be (and for her age, probably still IS) essentially an IQ test.

I want judges who are SMART. Very smart. Not lemmings.

So, while I think Dershowitz did some very questionable things with Epstein, I would STILL have him on the bench because he's quite smart (although his argument that "we thought gender wasn't changeable, but turns out it is" is laughable), and has shown himself to be reasonably principled (in that he doesn't outright lie, even if he would like to).

Now as regards Trump - I would very much like to see his SAT score too (since we are probably going to elect him in 2024). I'd like to see the SAT score of DeSantis and Massie. But their taxes? No, no interest in that.

I'm tired of midwits.

Yes, there is more to a person than pure intellect. And lots of very smart people are evil. But let's start with smart and then select out from there for other bad characteristics.

Let me put it to you this way: What IQ score is too low to be considered?

Obviously you'd agree that anyone with an IQ under 100 should NEVER be on the supreme court.

Shouldn't the standard be the top 5% of intellects? 130? Seriously, there are over 7,000,000 Americans with an IQ above 130. Although its hard for me to believe (just a little sarcasm there), some of them are actually lawyers.

I say that we pick from that subset - has to be at least 300,000 lawyers with IQ above 130.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

Still in State College

Well-Known Member
Mar 8, 2002
4,847
1,959
1
These hearings should really be about determining the nominees understanding of the US Constitution. As all of their decisions should be based upon this document and making sure local communities and states are not making laws the violate the law of the land. I look at the SCOTUS as a place for scholars to correctly debate and rule on the correctness in the application of the law.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,425
23,510
1
These hearings should really be about determining the nominees understanding of the US Constitution. As all of their decisions should be based upon this document and making sure local communities and states are not making laws the violate the law of the land. I look at the SCOTUS as a place for scholars to correctly debate and rule on the correctness in the application of the law.
That went out the window with Robert Bork.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jerry and Hotshoe

fbh1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,609
687
1
74
Bellefonte, PA
I agree that you could cherry pick any judge's rulings. I do agree with that.

Harvard law school means very little to me because I know they knock down requirements now. It isn't like she's got a degree from MIT in physics.

But on the SAT/LSAT - you're aware that the SAT used to be (and for her age, probably still IS) essentially an IQ test.

I want judges who are SMART. Very smart. Not lemmings.

So, while I think Dershowitz did some very questionable things with Epstein, I would STILL have him on the bench because he's quite smart (although his argument that "we thought gender wasn't changeable, but turns out it is" is laughable), and has shown himself to be reasonably principled (in that he doesn't outright lie, even if he would like to).

Now as regards Trump - I would very much like to see his SAT score too (since we are probably going to elect him in 2024). I'd like to see the SAT score of DeSantis and Massie. But their taxes? No, no interest in that.

I'm tired of midwits.

Yes, there is more to a person than pure intellect. And lots of very smart people are evil. But let's start with smart and then select out from there for other bad characteristics.

Let me put it to you this way: What IQ score is too low to be considered?

Obviously you'd agree that anyone with an IQ under 100 should NEVER be on the supreme court.

Shouldn't the standard be the top 5% of intellects? 130? Seriously, there are over 7,000,000 Americans with an IQ above 130. Although its hard for me to believe (just a little sarcasm there), some of them are actually lawyers.

I say that we pick from that subset - has to be at least 300,000 lawyers with IQ above 130.
From what I've been told... you don't get into Harvard Law if you aren't qualified regardless of their desire to meet diversity levels. They have so many candidates of all persuasions to choose from. In your terms... It is comparable to the MIT for mathematics, etc. for grad schools. I have no doubt that she has a solid IQ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
4,124
6,599
1
From what I've been told... you don't get into Harvard Law if you aren't qualified regardless of their desire to meet diversity levels. They have so many candidates of all persuasions to choose from. In your terms... It is comparable to the MIT for mathematics, etc. for grad schools. I have no doubt that she has a solid IQ.
Don't you want to know her LSAT and her SAT, so you can know her intellectual capabilities?

I want to know it for all our candidates, for all serious offices, including President, Supreme Court, and so forth.

We knew GWB's IQ - 124 or so. Frankly, that's not high enough.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
7,150
6,924
1
Initially I would have said yes. Despite my concerns with the selection process. Now after hearing not only her testimony and democrats attacking senators that asked questions regarding her philosophy (which dem senators did for barret and kavanaugh) that tells me they don't want to get into that because it would be damaging
 

fbh1

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Jan 17, 2002
1,609
687
1
74
Bellefonte, PA
Don't you want to know her LSAT and her SAT, so you can know her intellectual capabilities?

I want to know it for all our candidates, for all serious offices, including President, Supreme Court, and so forth.

We knew GWB's IQ - 124 or so. Frankly, that's not high enough.
Sorry, I don't necessarily agree with you that SAT scores define a person's intellectual capabilities. I have had some down right brilliant students pass through my classes that confided in me that they only did okay on the SATs. There are a variety of factors that need to be considered with SAT results. That's why a number of colleges no longer use SAT scores as a requisite for acceptance. I will repeat that the fact that she attended Harvard for both undergraduate as well as law school speaks volumes about her intellectual capabilities. She was also an editor on the Harvard Law Review. I doubt very much that she would have even been considered for the undergraduate program with any thing less on her SATs than 1400 . My guess is that most Harvard undergrads are most likely in the 1500 range. Does that mean she has a 130 IQ... who knows and who cares. I know several people that have very high IQ's that have little or no common sense. Maybe you should sponsor a bill that requires people running for political offices prove that they have 130 IQa. Boy would that eliminate a large percentage of our legislators.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
4,124
6,599
1
Sorry, I don't necessarily agree with you that SAT scores define a person's intellectual capabilities. I have had some down right brilliant students pass through my classes that confided in me that they only did okay on the SATs. There are a variety of factors that need to be considered with SAT results. That's why a number of colleges no longer use SAT scores as a requisite for acceptance. I will repeat that the fact that she attended Harvard for both undergraduate as well as law school speaks volumes about her intellectual capabilities. She was also an editor on the Harvard Law Review. I doubt very much that she would have even been considered for the undergraduate program with any thing less on her SATs than 1400 . My guess is that most Harvard undergrads are most likely in the 1500 range. Does that mean she has a 130 IQ... who knows and who cares. I know several people that have very high IQ's that have little or no common sense. Maybe you should sponsor a bill that requires people running for political offices prove that they have 130 IQa. Boy would that eliminate a large percentage of our legislators.

We would do well to eliminate and replace most of our existing legislators. Seriously, can we do any worse? Not only are a high percentage sociopaths, but also midwits.

You know that IQ and SAT are highly correlated? Correlation factor of approximately 0.8, so it really does predict intelligence quite well. SAT to IQ

Are you seriously OK with a person on the highest court in the land having an IQ of 115, for example? 120?

Do you really think that the fact that you know some smart people who have no common sense invalidates the benefits of IQ? Seriously?

Why do we want to be run by stupid people? Why don't we want to be run by smart people?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
20,425
23,510
1
We would do well to eliminate and replace most of our existing legislators. Seriously, can we do any worse? Not only are a high percentage sociopaths, but also midwits.

You know that IQ and SAT are highly correlated. Correlation factor of approximately 0.8, so it really does predict intelligence quite well. SAT to IQ

Are you seriously OK with a person on the highest court in the land having an IQ of 115, for example? 120?

Do you really think that the fact that you know some smart people who have no common sense invalidates the benefits of IQ? Seriously?

Why do we want to be run by stupid people? Why don't we want to be run by smart people?
Funny thing, my 1250 back in 1979 without any prep course work was darn close to my tested, like almost exact.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
25,610
41,522
1
You need to understand where he’s coming from. He thinks his state school degree from the 80’s makes him smart.
I see your bigotry once more. Your dumbass friend, who supposedly graduated from a "state school," also liked your nonsense. So, Penn State, tOSU, Michigan, and hundreds others, all suck? What a joke you are.
 

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
4,124
6,599
1
Twitter and Rick Wilson. Another pathetic, weak, White lib male. He's no Republican. Hey NJ, ask him about his Confederate flag.
"As a lifelong democrat, I'm disgusted by the members of MY party who still support the pedophiles at the Lincoln Project."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hotshoe

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
25,610
41,522
1
I'll say this... it is easy to cherry pick through all of her decisions and come up with what you want to prove about her. you don't know any or all of the circumstances behind any of those decision. From what I have read about her, she has been fairly well respected for her rulings and decisions. As far as her SAT's and LSATs go... of what significance would they be? She made it through Harvard law school... that tells me how smart and determined she must be. If documents and scores like that are important why were you willing to let your buddy Trump off the hook when he refused (and still does) to release his tax forms? That's something that every presidential candidate has done in the past. Sorry but I couldn't help but make this analogy even if its not consistent with scores on college and law school entry exams. Besides, especially with SAT's, they don't prove much of anything... that's why a lot of schools don't use them anymore.
.
Finally, in the past I have watched other proceedings such as Barrett, Thomas, etc. They all avoid certain types of questions so that they don't create issues for future rulings... if they happened to be confirmed. It should be easy enough for you to understand why. Even a simple question like the one about what she considers a woman is... could come back to haunt her if she ever had to make a ruling on a transgender rights case if it got to the Supreme Court.
Cherry pick? Her judicial record is not cherry picking, it's real. She owns her record. It is all subject to critique. Some of you will say anything to promote your fking party.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
25,610
41,522
1
Chin up you angry "alpha males", someday you will all be dead and you won't need to cry anymore about competing in an increasingly diverse population.

"Always look on the bright side of life"
This post is as stupid and unfounded as it gets. Nothing but bullsh&t virtue signaling.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
25,610
41,522
1
Lies- please provide some proof. She is black , that’s her real sin for you bigots:
You're a white joke of a male lib. If you couldn't bring up race, you couldn't speak. You never provide proof of anything. Troll.
 

RoyalT12

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2020
5,385
4,223
1
There is nothing less important than having a diverse legal background.

Seriously. You lawyer types make me laugh.

We need smart, seriously smart, people ruling on the constitutionality of laws.

Not people who might be more or less sympathetic to a given point of view.

The constitution is clear and is further clarified by the federalist and anti-federalist papers. We just need people smart enough to not fall for the nonsense that the activist lawyers throw out there.
So the Constitution as written is infallible? Idiot . It was not written by God. It needs constant review and interpretation. If not, you don’t need a SCOTUS
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ned2

PSUEngineer89

Well-Known Member
Aug 14, 2021
4,124
6,599
1
Cherry pick? Her judicial record is not cherry picking, it's real. She owns her record. It is all subject to critique. Some of you will say anything to promote your fking party.
It's all very interesting to me.

I actually would concede that we all do some cherry picking on these things (of course, who is going to review and debate the case where she sentenced an armed robber to 2 years prison or whatever).

But I don't like her cowardly approach. Further, I know she's a wokeist - and not very smart. I can see it, even if others cannot.

Imagine Dershowitz up there - he'd argue WHY he did what he did, and you might not like it, but generally, his argument would be strong. He would lose such an argument to Cruz, but it would be AWESOME to see.
 

Hotshoe

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Feb 15, 2012
25,610
41,522
1
It's all very interesting to me.

I actually would concede that we all do some cherry picking on these things (of course, who is going to review and debate the case where she sentenced an armed robber to 2 years prison or whatever).

But I don't like her cowardly approach. Further, I know she's a wokeist - and not very smart. I can see it, even if others cannot.

Imagine Dershowitz up there - he'd argue WHY he did what he did, and you might not like it, but generally, his argument would be strong. He would lose such an argument to Cruz, but it would be AWESOME to see.
If one is arguing judicial precedent, there's no issue there. To play ignorant on your own judgment, to not answer what a woman is? Total bullsh&t. Honest people know this, and I fking support her nomination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUEngineer89

RoyalT12

Well-Known Member
Dec 3, 2020
5,385
4,223
1
Sorry, I don't necessarily agree with you that SAT scores define a person's intellectual capabilities. I have had some down right brilliant students pass through my classes that confided in me that they only did okay on the SATs. There are a variety of factors that need to be considered with SAT results. That's why a number of colleges no longer use SAT scores as a requisite for acceptance. I will repeat that the fact that she attended Harvard for both undergraduate as well as law school speaks volumes about her intellectual capabilities. She was also an editor on the Harvard Law Review. I doubt very much that she would have even been considered for the undergraduate program with any thing less on her SATs than 1400 . My guess is that most Harvard undergrads are most likely in the 1500 range. Does that mean she has a 130 IQ... who knows and who cares. I know several people that have very high IQ's that have little or no common sense. Maybe you should sponsor a bill that requires people running for political offices prove that they have 130 IQa. Boy would that eliminate a large percentage of our legislators.
Yes, all people designated as smart by one data point is a great way to choose leaders. This is the most ridiculous post on a board of ridiculous posts. It certainly would eliminate the entire Russia Wng of the Republican Party- and Trump !
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nittany Ned2

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,306
10,990
1
SE PA
And we need to oppose any person who is willing to be so ...... I don't even know the right word for it...fake?

Is that what these people are today? Simply fake people.

What real person won't answer a simple question like "can you define the term 'woman'"?

The midwit has been trained to respond like she did - essentially evading the question.

A real person would say, "Yeah, its someone with female anatomy." Or "Hey, its a loaded question, we all know what a woman is. We all also know there's an issue being asked about transgenderism and so forth"

That's what I notice more and more today...answers are all canned non-answers.

Also, Biden isn't president any more than I'm president.

She's the insane deep state's pick.
I can tell you who ISN'T a woman.

If after winning a swim race, you can sport a woody, you aren't a woman.
 

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
7,150
6,924
1
Chin up you angry "alpha males", someday you will all be dead and you won't need to cry anymore about competing in an increasingly diverse population.

"Always look on the bright side of life"
I will simplify for you. This judge has let's call them outliers in regards to sentencing/sentencing guidelines for some very serious crimes. Which obviously should be addressed. The records we're requested...of course there was pushback regarding anonymity of the victims. The records were requested with those names redacted...they are still resisting what does that tell you?
 
Last edited:

JR4PSU

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Sep 27, 2002
40,306
10,990
1
SE PA
I know. STOPTHESTEAL, right?

Good thing you have your calculus skillz to fall back on ...
Nothing to do with that. Biden simply is not the one calling the shots in the WH. He is a President on paper only. He has no idea where he is half the time. He is just doing what he's told.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUEngineer89

ao5884

Well-Known Member
Oct 1, 2019
7,150
6,924
1
Nothing to do with that. Biden simply is not the one calling the shots in the WH. He is a President on paper only. He has no idea where he is half the time. He is just doing what he's told.
Meh for this specific issue it goes beyond Biden. A nominee for SCOTUS is being questioned on the judicial rulings that she made. Which should be standard....the democrats don't want that....that should be a huge red flag for anyone with a brain. Think about it to the democrats...pushing uncooberated 30 year old allegations and waiting to do so until they could maximize their political gains was perfectly acceptable. Yet questions surrounding JUDICIAL DECISIONS of a nominee seeking a JUDICIAL APPOINTMENT is not acceptable.