Is she quailified? Yes.
Does this fulfill a campaign promise? Yes.
Is the GOP going to have a major hissy fit, melt down? Probably.
Will this quote from the story help to prevent aforementioned hissy fit? Doubtful, but one could hope.
“Court watchers who previously spoke to The Hill about Jackson emphasized her reputation as a fair, balanced and serious judge who would not be swayed by a case’s political dimensions.”
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
When your primary qualifications are race and gender and all others need not apply, that is sheer unadulterated discrimination. Biden is lying when he claims this lady is the first to be nominated. Jackson will always be the product of affirmative action and Biden’s puppetry for votes otherwise he would have voted yes to confirm Brown (you know, the real first black woman nominated for her qualifications, not color, that Biden spat on).
LikeLike
“Biden is lying when he claims this lady is the first to be nominated.”
Name the first Black woman nominated to the Supreme Court. Go ahead. The name is easy to find. It’s in the post.
Ronald Reagan vowed to nominate a woman to SCOTUS and he did. She was well qualified and did her job very well. Did you think that there was “unadulterated discrimination” then?
I do note that you were the first to start throwing a hissy fit. Your rant makes about as much sense as most everything else you cry about.
Explain how she ISN’T qualified or crawl back down into your hate hole and let the world move forward.
LikeLike
I already told you who it was. I’m only stating facts, the only hissy fit I see is you which is why you missed it.
LikeLike
You mentioned some name, but with no cite or anything else, what do you expect? You just want to mea culpa because you SAID something that may or may not be true. Everyone else on this forum has a decent habit of providing the information to back what they say. You, being you, just throws shit against the wall and then complains when you are called out for it.
SO I ask you again: Who was the first Black woman nominated to the Supreme Court, who nominated her, and did she get a full hearing? Back your statements up or return to your hate hole … and please stay there until you realize that qualified does not mean, White, Male, Straight and Christian only.
And if you are able, show me exactly where I threw a hissy. You went into the “unadulterated discrimination” cry right off the rip. And tell me how she isn’t qualified. You can’t so just knock it off.
LikeLike
Is the covid isolation causing these wild delusions of yours? Or is it drugs or being brain dead? I ne ver said anything against Jackson’s qualifications. I did say she was picked for being a bla c k female and all others were discriminated against. If you can ‘tGoogle Brown’s nomination by Bush that Biden spat on, thhats your laziness at work. I will accept your apologies when provided.
LikeLike
She was never nominated. Even the Post column I read said it was blocked and threatened with filibuster and went on to explain the political reasoning behind that choice. I disagree with the action, but the fact is Judge Brown never made it to the Senate Judiciary committee.
SO while you may be accurate about a POTENTIAL nomination, this one is actually happening.
And you will get no apology from me. Not until YOU apologize for every attack on anyone that disagrees with you, doesn’t look like you, sound like you , love like you , or pray like you.
LikeLike
She is more qualified than you know.
Reagan nominated O’Conner specifically stating he wanted a woman. Was she knocking out qualified White males, too?
Guaranteed she is much more qualified than Kavanaugh and Barrett…combined.
But at least you have something to grouse over. So enjoy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does grouse over = hissy fit?
LikeLike
I’ll wait until I know more about her past opinions before commenting on her.
In general, President’s appointments should be respected unless there is some indication of unsuitable judicial temperament.
We shall see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A note of interest. Except for Barrett, she went to Norte Dame Law, all the others went to either Harvard or Yale Law Schools. Between those two schools, and Columbia Law, 39 alumni have been on the Supreme bench. Jackson would be another Harvard graduate.
I suspect that nominees are chosen from the elite schools to bolster the bona fides for hearings. Self-fulfilling in a way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is what Lindsay “I want Donald to like me” Graham had to say:
“In his statement, Graham also bemoaned that the “Harvard-Yale train to the Supreme Court continues to run unabated.”
Graham has voted to confirm multiple justices from the two Ivy League schools, including Yale-graduate Brett Kavanaugh and Harvard-graduate Neil Gorsuch.”
He also said the “radical left has won again”. Funny how he was one of three GOP Senators who voted for her confirmation to the DC Circuit not too long ago.
Now, where did I put that hypocrisy quote from the other day?
LikeLike
I’ve heard the phrase “post-truth generation” a lot in the last few years. It matters not at all to the GOP right wing nuts if anything is true or not so long as a scapegoat can be found or created.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Found it:
Hypocrites kick with their hind feet while licking with their tongues.
LikeLike
Graham has a long history of respecting Presidential appointments. He should get credit for that, not scorn.
LikeLike
And he just blew that legacy out of the water. Probably because his choice wasn’t selected.
LikeLike
Has he made any claims she shouldn’t be confirmed? Judge Childs would have been a better choice, but Biden is President and gets to make the call.
LikeLike
His statement concerning “the Far Left winning” is pretty damning.
Obama was supposed to make the call, but McConnell said no. And then reversed course to get Barrett confirmed.
You claim to be supportive of Presidential appointments, but you have had zero problems with what McConnell has done. And now Graham, preemptively, has laid the groundwork for Biden to NOT “make the call.”
LikeLike
So, Graham is not allowed an opinion?
Judge Brown-Jackson was the choice advocated by the Squad and other extreme left politicians, so Graham’s comments are correct.
Biden gets to make the call, but he can’t go far left and next expect some backlash.
Brown-Jackson has been on the appellate court less than a year, so there is little judicial history to go by, but her very short appellate experience casts a great deal of doubt on Biden’s motives.
Even if he wanted to limit is choices to Black women, he had far better options with more experience to choose from.
We will have to wait for the hearings to get an idea of her fitness, but it appears the choice was more partisan than merit.
LikeLike
Federal District Court in DC for 8 years. Clerked for Breyer. I would say that the year on appeals court was just icing on the cake.
We need young blood on the court and she is only 51.
Barrett is 50 and except for 3 years on 7th District Appeals, she was an academic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
District Court Judges don’t set precedent. Her very short time on the appeals court leaves a very short trail to follow in determining temperament.
That means a lot more will have to be learned at her hearings.
But the fact that the Squad advocated for her conserns me.
LikeLike
If she gives the same answers as Barrett, would that satisfy you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
If they were consistent with her record, yes.
I do believe Biden should get his choice, just as Trump eventually did. So long as she doesn’t misrepresent herself in the hearings I expect she will get some GOP votes.
In the old days, judicial appointments weren’t partisan issues. This acrimony started with Bork and continues from the Democrat side. Kagan and Sotomayor did not get the kind of treatment Kavanaugh got.
LikeLike
No defense for Barrett? She has less judicial experience than Jackson.
LikeLike
Again, Barrett has 6 times the appellate level record.
LikeLike
Jackson’s qualifications and experience are within the norm. Barrett, as Len pointed out, was an academic. Jackson has courtroom experience that best represents the understanding of this country’s justice system.
She is from the same tree of experience as Thurgood Marshall.
LikeLike
Really? How many other Justices have only 6 months appellate record?
LikeLike
As far as Courts of Appeal experience, Thomas had one year, 1990-91. Roberts had 2 years at best.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“So, Graham is not allowed an opinion?”
In one breath you say that a President should have his choice and that Graham has a record of supporting that.
In the next breath you say his opinion is not an issue with regard to that.
He was one of 3 Republicans who voted to confirm her previously. Now she is a pariah because she has the support of Progressive AMERICANS who want to see proper QUALIFIED representation of AMERICA on SCOTUS.
YOUR options, obviously, were not strong enough to earn the nomination. Biden has made his choice. Respect it, approve of it unless she is unqualified and move along. Her confirmation will do nothing to change the 6-3 imbalance of the court.
LikeLike
A judge who places her political agenda ahead of the letter of the law is a problem.
We do not yet know if she will do that or not, and lacking a significant appellate record, the hearings will have to be respectful, but thorough . Expect every relevant writing she has done to be examined.
LikeLike
…” judge who places her political agenda ahead of the letter of the law is a problem judge who places her political agenda ahead of the letter of the law is a problem.”
Your description of Barrett is noted.
LikeLike
“President’s appointments should be respected unless there is some indication of unsuitable judicial temperament.”
And based on what you have said in the past that means they have to interpret the Law exactly the way you do.
Except for Kavanaugh who displayed a lack of suitable temperament during his confirmation. But you still supported him.
LikeLike
The only unsuitable temperament I saw in the Kavanaugh hearing was on the part of his accusers and the shameless politicians who put those frauds forth.
LikeLike
Frauds?
Not so sure. Background investigations were sketchy or incomplete.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sketchy?
They dragged up recovered memories by an alcohol sotted partisan from 30 years past.
Every Democrat should be ashamed, but they never are.
LikeLike
“Every Democrat should be ashamed, but they never are.
Every Republican who supports the Big Lie and the Trumpification of their party should be ashamed, but they are too chicken shit to do so.
LikeLike
Does Trump have anything to do with the Democrat’s shameful attacks on Kavanaugh, or is Trump just your all purpose whipping boy when you have nothing to say?
LikeLike
It is about “shame”. You talk about how Democrats should be ashamed but never are. I am just using the latest example of why the GOP should be ashamed.
There are many others, including McConnell’s blocking of Garland’s nomination because the “people should have a say.” And then four years later rushed the nomination of Barrett through. The basic hypocrisy of the GOP is enough to be ashamed of, but the never do.
I have said plenty, by the way. You just don’t like what I have to say. Especially when it calls out the hypocrisy on display daily.
LikeLike
I have repeatedly written that Garland should have had his hearings, and then be rejected based on his defiance of SCOTUS precedent.
LikeLike
I know you don’t like Trump as a subject. Hard to avoid since he is the be all and end all for the GOP, from school boards to the Senate. Every policy they support is done with permission only. He tells them to support Putin…and they do. He tells them he won the election in a landslide, and they agree.
Dump Trump and the spectrum of real policy, politics and agendas come alive. And the sad fact is the GOP wishes to keep them off the table. So now it is all CRT, all the time. And shocking as it may be, that is a non-issue for the vast majority of the country. But it is a media worthy distraction pumped hard by MSM like FOX and it’s pernicious tributaries.
BTW I predict that loving Putin is going to bite the butt for the Republicans. After all, the Ukrainians are White Europeans, not some beleaguered Muslim sects in a tinpot country. White, even blond, civilian bodies stacked like cordwood is not what even our Nationalists want to see.
IMHANEO
LikeLiked by 1 person
Where do you get the idea that the GOP support Putin? FOX is beating the war drums all day long.
Recognizing the ineptness of Biden’s responce is not supporting Putin.
LikeLike
I stand slightly corrected on the support or lack of by the GOP. I did notice that McConnell blamed our withdrawal from Afghanistan for the attack.
How would you have responded to the invasion?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would have offered to be a mediator for peace talks. I sure the hell would not have encouraged the Ukranian people to make themselves cannon fodder.
In 1994 we promised NATO would not incorporate former Soviet countries into NATO. Then we immediately broke that promise.
We should never have reflexively taken sides just because we don’t like Putin. We would have been far more effective as an impartial peacemaker.
Remember, this is not Hitler vs brave patriots, this is a turf war between competing oligarchs.
LikeLike
“ They dragged up recovered memories by an alcohol sotted partisan from 30 years past.”
Well, Kavanaugh was a heavy drinker, but I don’t know how partisan he was then.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is kind of ironic that we had affirmative action for damn near our entire history. Up until the 1970’s or so it was for Whites. Men mostly.
So now we may have a few decades to reset a balance and suddenly the former segregationists in conservative circles are all about egalitarianism.
Sort of like the bullying older brother who took what he wanted from his younger siblings until the parents made him share more equitably. “Unfair!!!”
No matter how someone gets into elite schools, they are responsible for graduating on their own. And you can bet that most who were given a little boost in admissions by law are heads above the legacy students who qualified by birth.
LikeLiked by 1 person