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

[fbh1]

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?

I'm not ready to assign a minimum IQ number as a measure as to whether someone is qualified to become a member of the supreme court, legislator or president for that matter. Obviously I want someone that is intelligent enough to do the job properly but as of today I have never seen a study done linking IQ numbers with job results for our leaders. I don't know what Trump's IQ is but if it is less than 115 should that rule him out as a presidential candidate. If so I would definitely like to see him tested. Sorry, I won't accept a score that he claims to have. He also claims to have a 2 or 3 golf handicap that most of the people that play with him vigorously dispute.

 

[NewEra 2014]

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.

Thanks for the best laugh I have had all week. She may have a solid IQ, but that has nothing to do with Harvard Law letting her into their program. I saw Harvard Law bringing in diversity students as far back as the 1980s who had no business being there.

 

[PSUEngineer89]

I'm not ready to assign a minimum IQ number as a measure as to whether someone is qualified to become a member of the supreme court, legislator or president for that matter. Obviously I want someone that is intelligent enough to do the job properly but as of today I have never seen a study done linking IQ numbers with job results for our leaders. I don't know what Trump's IQ is but if it is less than 115 should that rule him out as a presidential candidate. If so I would definitely like to see him tested. Sorry, I won't accept a score that he claims to have. He also claims to have a 2 or 3 golf handicap that most of the people that play with him vigorously dispute.

I am only aware of GWBs IQ, leaked and corroborated during campaign - 124.

What has Trump claimed? I have never heard it.

 

[fbh1]

I am only aware of GWBs IQ, leaked and corroborated during campaign - 124.

What has Trump claimed? I have never heard it.

I don’t know if or when or what he might have claimed for IQ. My point is that I wouldn’t believe it if it was coming from him and not from an independent testing service. I mentioned it because you seem to indicate that a below 120 shouldn’t be acceptable. Isn’t that would you posted above?

 

[PSUEngineer89]

I don’t know if or when or what he might have claimed for IQ. My point is that I wouldn’t believe it if it was coming from him and not from an independent testing service. I mentioned it because you seem to indicate that a below 120 shouldn’t be acceptable. Isn’t that would you posted above?

I should be very, very clear.

We are a nation of 340 million people, of which at least half are old enough to be president, so 170 million people.

I think smart matters a lot. I think that the real drivers in this world were geniuses - Tesla, Einstein, Ford, Gates, Jobs, Westinghouse, Edison, Bezos, etc. We know that a number of those guys had IQs north of 140.

Now, there are a lot of people who were middling that also made a difference. I'm not saying you cannot make a difference - you obviously can do so....although I honestly am struggling to come up with a good example.

But here is the point - 2.2% of the population has an IQ above 130. That's 170 million people * 0.022 or 3.5 million people or so.

So, we have 3.5 million people to choose from that we know are really quite smart. Out of that 3.5 million people, there will be some who are otherwise unsuitable (bad actors, immature, no presence, too introverted, too weak). But in that 3.5 million, we can get 9 supreme court justices, a president, VP, and 100 senators.

Then on the judicial side, we'd have Ted Cruz debating the merits of the law with Alan Dershowitz. That knocks the hell out of Kamala Harris questioning Amy Coney Barrett.

On the legislative side, we'd have Thomas Massie debating....how about Elon Musk?

 

[PSUEngineer89]

I should be very, very clear.

We are a nation of 340 million people, of which at least half are old enough to be president, so 170 million people.

I think smart matters a lot. I think that the real drivers in this world were geniuses - Tesla, Einstein, Ford, Gates, Jobs, Westinghouse, Edison, Bezos, etc. We know that a number of those guys had IQs north of 140.

Now, there are a lot of people who were middling that also made a difference. I'm not saying you cannot make a difference - you obviously can do so....although I honestly am struggling to come up with a good example.

But here is the point - 2.2% of the population has an IQ above 130. That's 170 million people * 0.022 or 3.5 million people or so.

So, we have 3.5 million people to choose from that we know are really quite smart. Out of that 3.5 million people, there will be some who are otherwise unsuitable (bad actors, immature, no presence, too introverted, too weak). But in that 3.5 million, we can get 9 supreme court justices, a president, VP, and 100 senators.

Then on the judicial side, we'd have Ted Cruz debating the merits of the law with Alan Dershowitz. That knocks the hell out of Kamala Harris questioning Amy Coney Barrett.

On the legislative side, we'd have Thomas Massie debating....how about Elon Musk?

One more point - I'm not in favor of a minimum standard or anything like that from a legal standpoint.

But I am for disclosing test scores, transcripts and so forth. It ought to be part of the standard vetting process. Today, it's all closely held - no SAT or LSAT for Trump, Obama, Clinton, ACB.

That's nonsense. The public has a right to know before they vote.

 

[bourbon n blues]

The SAT test was essentially an IQ test back in those days.

So, it is no surprise that the scores matched.

It was about exact , lol.

 

[KnightWhoSaysNit]

I should be very, very clear.

We are a nation of 340 million people, of which at least half are old enough to be president, so 170 million people.

I think smart matters a lot. I think that the real drivers in this world were geniuses - Tesla, Einstein, Ford, Gates, Jobs, Westinghouse, Edison, Bezos, etc. We know that a number of those guys had IQs north of 140.

Now, there are a lot of people who were middling that also made a difference. I'm not saying you cannot make a difference - you obviously can do so....although I honestly am struggling to come up with a good example.

But here is the point - 2.2% of the population has an IQ above 130. That's 170 million people * 0.022 or 3.5 million people or so.

So, we have 3.5 million people to choose from that we know are really quite smart. Out of that 3.5 million people, there will be some who are otherwise unsuitable (bad actors, immature, no presence, too introverted, too weak). But in that 3.5 million, we can get 9 supreme court justices, a president, VP, and 100 senators.

Then on the judicial side, we'd have Ted Cruz debating the merits of the law with Alan Dershowitz. That knocks the hell out of Kamala Harris questioning Amy Coney Barrett.

On the legislative side, we'd have Thomas Massie debating....how about Elon Musk?

Along these lines, I like to look at reviews of movies before deciding to watch them.

Why?

1. Unfortunately, some highly rated movies I DID NOT like. (i.e., not all high IQ people would qualify) BUT...
2. I've never seen a poorly rated movie that I DID like. (A low IQ person would not qualify)

In other words, it is pertinent data.

 

[NewEra 2014]

Along these lines, I like to look at reviews of movies before deciding to watch them.

Why?

1. Unfortunately, some highly rated movies I DID NOT like. (i.e., not all high IQ people would qualify) BUT...
2. I've never seen a poorly rated movie that I DID like. (A low IQ person would not qualify)

In other words, it is pertinent data.

In regard to movie reviews, I tend to look at Rotten Tomatoes for movie ratings. RT will show Critics Ratings and Audience Ratings. As I understand it, Audience Ratings are compilations from everyday folks who leave a rating on RT. I have enjoyed quite a few movies that were poorly rated by critics, but were also highly rated by the audience. I don't believe I have ever enjoyed a movie that was highly rated by critics, but poorly rated by audience ratings.

 

[LafayetteBear]

My narrative of the history surrounding your Party's slimy politicization of the nomination process happens to be accurate, Laf. If it isn't, please do point out what I got wrong.

Regarding Garland and Barrett, first, both those nominations have to be understood within the context of that history. Second, the Republicans acted entirely within the rules of the Senate. Their behavior was not remotely as appalling and disgusting as was your Party's treatment of Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh.

Furthermore, it seems there was a distinguished Dem-Mediacrat who all the way back in 1992 declared that "once the political season is under way...action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

The gentleman who said that was none other than Joe Biden...back before his mind failed. So Garland's nomination was handled under the terms of the Biden Rule. Don't you just hate it when hard facts blow up your case.

1. "Their behavior was not remotely as appalling and disgusting as was your Party's treatment of Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh." Wut?! Didn't all three of those nominees you mentioned get Senate confirmation hearings and an actual, honest to goodness VOTE? We all know that Merrick Garland did not.

And BTW, I am not angry about the grilling of Judge Jackson in the Senate confirmation hearings. Nominees to the Supreme Court had best be prepared to receive a grilling, and to get asked some questions that are, from any objective standpoint, over the top. Given how partisan the Congress has become, and how polarizing Supreme Court nominations have become, that is now par for the course. But please spare us your bleating about how "it was ALL Dem-Media's fault." That is not only incorrect but childish on its face.

2. As for the quote you attributed to Joe Biden, I think it is pretty funny that you brought it up. Do I understand your position to be that this "political season has begun" argument applies only when the Supreme Court nomination is made by a Democratic president? That may be your position, but it is not supported by Biden's quoted statement, and it is logically indefensible. But you have a habit of asserting such positions.

 

[ChiTownLion]

 

[LafayetteBear]

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.

Good thing we have you sitting in on meetings in the Oval Office and reporting back. Your first hand personal knowledge of what goes on there is invaluable.

 

[ao5884]

Thanks for the best laugh I have had all week. She may have a solid IQ, but that has nothing to do with Harvard Law letting her into their program. I saw Harvard Law bringing in diversity students as far back as the 1980s who had no business being there.

This is the problem with affirmative action....It Ranks Race/ethnicity/gender above actual ability. it is by definition racist. Kind of like Biden did with this choice. She may or may not be qualified, however if race was a factor it was a racist decision....notice the normal leftwing assclowns that scream racist the second their feet hit the floor each morning are oddly silent.....very telling indeed.

 

[ao5884]

View embedded media

Remember ChiTown Justice Thomas isn't a real black person....he doesn't support Joe Biden.....shame on u for forgetting that.

 

[JR4PSU]

Good thing we have you sitting in on meetings in the Oval Office and reporting back. Your first hand personal knowledge of what goes on there is invaluable.

Not hard to understand when Biden spouts shit completely out-of-sync with his administration. Everyone in his administration makes statements completely in sync, then Biden shows up and says something completely different. Then others in his administration have to apologize for the non-sensical statements by our mental patient in chief.

So glad I could help. God knows you need it.

 

[crazyivan77]

 

[ao5884]

Good thing we have you sitting in on meetings in the Oval Office and reporting back. Your first hand personal knowledge of what goes on there is invaluable.

I mean a the lefties on this board must talk to Trump all the time....as they all claim to have knowledge about what Trump really meant when he told the crowd to March peacefully and patriotically on Jan 6th. Or that Trump pressured Zelenskey when even Zelensky himself said tgat he was not pressured.

 

[Jerry]

1. "Their behavior was not remotely as appalling and disgusting as was your Party's treatment of Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh." Wut?! Didn't all three of those nominees you mentioned get Senate confirmation hearings and an actual, honest to goodness VOTE? We all know that Merrick Garland did not.

And BTW, I am not angry about the grilling of Judge Jackson in the Senate confirmation hearings. Nominees to the Supreme Court had best be prepared to receive a grilling, and to get asked some questions that are, from any objective standpoint, over the top. Given how partisan the Congress has become, and how polarizing Supreme Court nominations have become, that is now par for the course. But please spare us your bleating about how "it was ALL Dem-Media's fault." That is not only incorrect but childish on its face.

2. As for the quote you attributed to Joe Biden, I think it is pretty funny that you brought it up. Do I understand your position to be that this "political season has begun" argument applies only when the Supreme Court nomination is made by a Democratic president? That may be your position, but it is not supported by Biden's quoted statement, and it is logically indefensible. But you have a habit of asserting such positions.

Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh didn't get "confirmation hearings" but rather "media circuses of character assassination" courtesy of your Party. And yes, the spectacle was much more disgusting and appalling than anything that happened (or didn't happen) to Garland.

The blatant politicization of the Supreme Court nomination process is solely the doing of the Dem-Media Party. Period. End paragraph.

Dear God, man, the record and the history could not be clearer on this score. Among other things, the new Dem-Media rules hold that Supreme Court justices will henceforth be approved (or not) on largely party-line votes. Republicans would be complete fools to use a more elevated standard than the one laid down by Dem-Media.

I don't understand your point about the Biden Rule. Here (again) is what he said: "Once the political season is under way...action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over." The quote is crystal clear, so I don't get your confusion on it.

 

[SR108]

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.

Supreme Court Justices don’t vote for Supreme Court nominees, Senators do. With that said if I were a Senator I would not vote for her. Putting all the Questioning aside, she is an activist. I believe that originalists should be on the SC.

 

[HartfordLlion]

She wouldn’t have been able to tell anyone what a woman is. She IS one and still doesn’t know.

you just have to look between your legs, if it is natural, not mutilated, and not hanging you are probably a women.

 

[HartfordLlion]

View embedded media

Yep, god forbid some senators asked about her prior legal cases and the rational around those decisions as opposed to someones summer HS drinking habits.

 

[Lion84]

Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh didn't get "confirmation hearings" but rather "media circuses of character assassination" courtesy of your Party. And yes, the spectacle was much more disgusting and appalling than anything that happened (or didn't happen) to Garland.

The blatant politicization of the Supreme Court nomination process is solely the doing of the Dem-Media Party. Period. End paragraph.

Dear God, man, the record and the history could not be clearer on this score. Among other things, the new Dem-Media rules hold that Supreme Court justices will henceforth be approved (or not) on largely party-line votes. Republicans would be complete fools to use a more elevated standard than the one laid down by Dem-Media.

I don't understand your point about the Biden Rule. Here (again) is what he said: "Once the political season is under way...action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over." The quote is crystal clear, so I don't get your confusion on it.

What I find the most hypocritical is the media somehow saying that the questions are so outrageous and out of bounds after what Barrett and Kavanaugh were asked which were mostly personal in nature - the GOP questions were at least mostly centered around her judicial decisions which they should be but the media is in hysterics about the questions - blatant hypocrisy.

 

[PSUEngineer89]

What I find the most hypocritical is the media somehow saying that the questions are so outrageous and out of bounds after what Barrett and Kavanaugh were asked which were mostly personal in nature - the GOP questions were at least mostly centered around her judicial decisions which they should be but the media is in hysterics about the questions - blatant hypocrisy.

The media is a serious problem. A bunch of liberal arts idiots.

But the other issue is: Why do we, as a population, accept such morons in one of the most powerful positions on earth?

Seriously - why don't we have our best and brightest?

We aren't even close - ACB, Sotomayor - that's the best we can do?

Why don't we have Dershowitz on the court? Robert Bork? Other really smart guys.

 

[The Spin Meister]

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.

It was exactly the main point of the article. It was about lying, distortions, misleading statements, propaganda, and more.

 

[ao5884]

1. "Their behavior was not remotely as appalling and disgusting as was your Party's treatment of Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh." Wut?! Didn't all three of those nominees you mentioned get Senate confirmation hearings and an actual, honest to goodness VOTE? We all know that Merrick Garland did not.

And BTW, I am not angry about the grilling of Judge Jackson in the Senate confirmation hearings. Nominees to the Supreme Court had best be prepared to receive a grilling, and to get asked some questions that are, from any objective standpoint, over the top. Given how partisan the Congress has become, and how polarizing Supreme Court nominations have become, that is now par for the course. But please spare us your bleating about how "it was ALL Dem-Media's fault." That is not only incorrect but childish on its face.

2. As for the quote you attributed to Joe Biden, I think it is pretty funny that you brought it up. Do I understand your position to be that this "political season has begun" argument applies only when the Supreme Court nomination is made by a Democratic president? That may be your position, but it is not supported by Biden's quoted statement, and it is logically indefensible. But you have a habit of asserting such positions.

So just to be clear here Laffy. Creating unverified sexusl assault allegations that supposedly happened 30 years ok and holding those allegations until right before the vote is acceptable. But questions regarding the Judicial Principles to an individual seeking a Judicial confirmation?

 

[ao5884]

Yep, god forbid some senators asked about her prior legal cases and the rational around those decisions as opposed to someones summer HS drinking habits.

Remember they supported an appointment of an individual that had absolutely no judicial experience.

 

[fbh1]

It was exactly the main point of the article. It was about lying, distortions, misleading statements, propaganda, and more.

That's your opinion... but of course that's probably the only correct opinion....

 

[PSUEngineer89]

That's your opinion... but of course that's probably the only correct opinion....

No sir.

Only my opinion is the correct one. @The Spin Meister is simply here as an enforcer.

I thought we had clarified that earlier!

 

[The Spin Meister]

That's your opinion... but of course that's probably the only correct opinion....

Try reading your article again. The entire point of it was that the Rs were distorting her record for political purposes.

 

[fbh1]

No sir.

Only my opinion is the correct one. @The Spin Meister is simply here as an enforcer.

I thought we had clarified that earlier!

If you read my post further I included the fact that Barret was not treated fairly either.... Again, that's my opinion and I certainly do not need him to act as an enforcer.

 

[The Spin Meister]

No sir.

Only my opinion is the correct one. @The Spin Meister is simply here as an enforcer.

I thought we had clarified that earlier!

Just an enforcer of truth!

 

[PSUEngineer89]

If you read my post further I included the fact that Barret was not treated fairly either.... Again, that's my opinion and I certainly do not need him to act as an enforcer.

Come on, man.

You've got to laugh some.

That's what the smiley's are there for - to indicate humor only.

 

[fbh1]

Come on, man.

You've got to laugh some.

That's what the smiley's are there for - to indicate humor only.

I am laughing... from now on I'll refer to him as the Arnold Shwarzenegger of this board. I'm sure that "he'll "be back" to terminate future conversations.... as the enforcer....

 

[roswelllion]

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.

No Forget the softer sentencing aspect [you are right], can you explain the logic on her child porn logic?
If I am not mistaken it sounded like "the law was written when child porn was hard to get, now with the internet child porn is easier to get so we should soften up sentencing". That is seriously convoluted logic.

 

[roswelllion]

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.

I saw just a little of Cruz question [more the argument with Durbin than the questioning.] What questioning from the above did you find offensive? If the questioning was related to her rulings or her writings it seems anything is fair game, If the questioning was more like an accusation [it seems like you support child pornography, or do you realize your rulings actually enable pedophiles, then I am against them]

 

[roswelllion]

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.

Spot on 89. A diverse background is important for the LAWMAKERS. It should be irrelevant for judges. They read the law and interpret it not make it. For those that think background is important please show us which constitutional law should be subject to experiential background.

A quick example: The right to bear arms. If you grew up in the country with hunting etc you might be more predisposed to favor gun rights than someone who grew up in the inner city and only saw crime and homicide with handguns. Both are based on background, HOWEVER the law is fairly clear. We have the right to bear arms. If we don't like that change the law don't expect a judge to change it for you via ruling.

Re the current discussion on child pornography. If Judge Jackson's logic [more available so less serious] is what makes sense [no way] then change the law. Our politicians have learned to depend on unelected judges to carry the load on changing laws.

 

[roswelllion]

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.​

​ 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.

Continue reading the main story​

That is a HUGELY distorted article about much more than just these hearings.

 

[LafayetteBear]

I mean a the lefties on this board must talk to Trump all the time....as they all claim to have knowledge about what Trump really meant when he told the crowd to March peacefully and patriotically on Jan 6th. Or that Trump pressured Zelenskey when even Zelensky himself said tgat he was not pressured.

We heard Cheeto say "fight" something like 25 times. I know you find it depressing, but it's all on videotape, so you can't gaslight your way out of this one.

 

[ao5884]

We heard Cheeto say "fight" something like 25 times. I know you find it depressing, but it's all on videotape, so you can't gaslight your way out of this one.

Show me one politician that has not told a crowd to fight for something. You really need to stop with the double standards. Obama, Kaine, Clinton, etc....have all used the same language.

 

[ao5884]

We heard Cheeto say "fight" something like 25 times. I know you find it depressing, but it's all on videotape, so you can't gaslight your way out of this one.

I can also give you video tape of him telling the jan 6th crowd to march peacefully...yeah that hasnt gone away...despite you being in denial.