Brown Kentanji Jackson: Obvious DEI pick, so little intelligence
- Thread starter Jerry Mathers
- Start date
Trump and Kavanaugh show that is false. And almost all of Trump's administration.
QP!
Verified User
He never said she was brilliant so take your lie elsewhere.
He was responding to the OP which suggested she was not qualified and degrees and the rest of her CV say she absolutely is.
By full CV I saw a legal site ranking that she has one of the deepest qualification histories of and SC Justice.
Judge Barrett having one of the thinnest.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
QP!
Verified User
Are you drunk or just stupid as I never mentioned Obama.
The OP suggested she was not qualified to be hired for the job she got.
The on paper qualifications ABSA FUCKING LUTELY qualify her for the job she got and there are legal sites who measure the CVS each nominee brings and she was ranked amongst the top by experience and education.
If you want to argue that does not mean someone is smart that is an entirely different argument then qualifications.
When I get home to my computer later I will look for one of the legal analysis sites that examines them all.
QP!
Verified User
No its on you and your stupidity.
the suggestion someone is a DEI hire, which is the point of the OP, means they are not qualified by resume and got the job for other reasons that are not tied to qualifications. That is clearly wrong and the person who posted her credentials was right to do so in response. You telling them it is an appeal to authority fallacy again shows what i tell you often, that you almost never use fallacies correctly properly nor understand them.
If someone wants to know if the person is qualified to be a Dr then their educational credentials and CV is exactly what you give them. That is NOT an appeal to authority to do so.
countryboy
Verified User
That's even worse, because that means she's just playing stupid, and purposefully usurping the Constitution. But no, she really is stupid I'm afraid. She was likely pushed through Harvard as an affirmative action case.
QP!
Verified User
If you do not want to read the AI break down of the articles and just want the articles you requested you can see all the original analysis articles linked in the 5 Citations below
----------------------
AI Analysis - Question : I recall analysis of the resume and experience at the time of Ketanji Jackson nomination and placement on the Supreme court to other Justices and especially Amy Barrett. Can you find some and put it in relation to the other Justices:
A widely circulated analysis (Citation 1) (notably by the Washington Post, later discussed elsewhere) compared types of experience across current justices—things like:
Key takeaway:
That’s important because:
Multiple legal groups and analysts emphasized how unusually diverse her résumé was:
For example:
Also notable:
Bottom line from these analyses:
Jackson wasn’t just “qualified”—she had a broader cross-section of legal experience than typical nominees.
This is where your memory about contrasts with Barrett comes in.
Amy Coney Barrett:
Ketanji Brown Jackson:
The contrast wasn’t that Barrett was “unqualified” (serious analysts didn’t argue that), but that:
Beyond specific nominees, there is a body of research and commentary on what SCOTUS résumés typically look like:
Scholars and commentators consistently note:
Jackson’s nomination stood out because:
Some fact-checking and analysis cautioned that:
So there are really two truths at once:
----------------------
AI Analysis - Question : I recall analysis of the resume and experience at the time of Ketanji Jackson nomination and placement on the Supreme court to other Justices and especially Amy Barrett. Can you find some and put it in relation to the other Justices:
1) “Credential depth” comparisons across justices
A widely circulated analysis (Citation 1) (notably by the Washington Post, later discussed elsewhere) compared types of experience across current justices—things like:
- Trial court experience
- Appellate judging
- Private practice
- Academia
- Government service
Key takeaway:
- Jackson stood out for breadth, especially trial-level experience and public defense work, which is rare on the Court.
- She had more trial court experience than several sitting justices combined, something commentators repeatedly highlighted.
That’s important because:
- Most modern justices come from appellate courts and elite law schools
- Very few have hands-on criminal defense or trial experience
2) Analyses calling Jackson unusually “well-rounded”
Multiple legal groups and analysts emphasized how unusually diverse her résumé was:
- Federal district court judge (trial judge)
- Federal appellate judge
- Public defender (unique among current justices)
- U.S. Sentencing Commission leadership
- Private practice + clerkships
For example:
- She brought about nine years of judicial experience, which is more than several recent nominees at the time of confirmation (Citation 2)
- Commentators described her as having a “very distinguished record” and “glittering résumé” (Citation 3)
Also notable:
- Her public defender experience is essentially unique among modern justices (Citation 4)
Bottom line from these analyses:Jackson wasn’t just “qualified”—she had a broader cross-section of legal experience than typical nominees.
3) Comparisons to recent nominees (including Barrett)
This is where your memory about contrasts with Barrett comes in.
How analysts framed it:
Amy Coney Barrett:
- Strengths:
- Elite academic credentials
- Prominent constitutional law scholar
- Appellate judge (7th Circuit)
- Criticism in some analyses:
- Limited judicial experience (only ~3 years as a judge when nominated)
- No trial court experience
- Little time outside academia + appellate work
Ketanji Brown Jackson:
- Strengths:
- Trial + appellate judging
- Public defender
- Government + sentencing policy work
- Framing:
- More “practice-heavy” and system-wide experience
- Less purely academic, more institutional breadth
The contrast wasn’t that Barrett was “unqualified” (serious analysts didn’t argue that), but that:- Barrett represented the modern “elite academic + appellate pipeline”
- Jackson represented a broader, more practice-diverse legal career
4) Structural studies of Supreme Court résumés
Beyond specific nominees, there is a body of research and commentary on what SCOTUS résumés typically look like:
Long-term trends
Scholars and commentators consistently note:
- Increasing dominance of:
- Ivy League law schools (especially Harvard/Yale)
- Federal appellate judgeships
- Decline of:
- Politicians on the Court
- Trial lawyers
- Varied legal backgrounds
Jackson’s nomination stood out because:
- She broke the “only appellate judge” mold
- Added professional diversity, not just demographic diversity
5) Important nuance (often missed in media takes)
Some fact-checking and analysis cautioned that:
- Viral graphics overstated differences without context (Citation 5)
- In core elite credentials (Harvard, clerkships, etc.), Jackson and other justices—including Barrett—actually look quite similar
So there are really two truths at once:- All modern nominees are extremely elite and similar on paper
- Jackson had more experiential diversity within that elite framework
Clean summary
- Modern Supreme Court nominees tend to follow a narrow pipeline (elite school → clerkship → appellate judge)
- Amy Coney Barrett fits that model almost perfectly
- Ketanji Brown Jackson adds rare elements:
- Trial judging
- Criminal defense
- Sentencing policy work
- That’s why analysts often described her résumé as “deeper” or more “well-rounded,”.
From the mouth of without question, the dumbest members of the SC in history.
View: https://x.com/PinoAmericano/status/2070150698755297766
The Supreme Court slapped down a Hawaiian law that infringed on the Second Amendment. Justice Jackson, in her dissent, started quoting Hawaiian law from when it was a separate Kingdom. LOL"Since its time as a sovereign kingdom, Hawaii has never permitted the widespread carrying of firearms in its territory. In 1833, King Kamehameha III of the Kingdom of Hawaii prohibited the possession of “dangerous weapon.”
View: https://x.com/PinoAmericano/status/2070150698755297766
The Supreme Court slapped down a Hawaiian law that infringed on the Second Amendment. Justice Jackson, in her dissent, started quoting Hawaiian law from when it was a separate Kingdom. LOL"Since its time as a sovereign kingdom, Hawaii has never permitted the widespread carrying of firearms in its territory. In 1833, King Kamehameha III of the Kingdom of Hawaii prohibited the possession of “dangerous weapon
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Jackson being mostly a public defender says it all. She couldn't get a 'real' job lawyering so she settled for one she just had to show up and pretend to be a lawyer.
QP!
Verified User
Except you are exposing your stupidity.
Lawyers who choose to work as Public Defenders or the DoJ or as State Prosecutors where they will make a fraction of the money that top private practice lawyers make is NOT they cannot get a 'real job' and that is proven by how many often jump between both.
Also as public defenders are almost always out gunned and out numbered by gov't lawyers who have far more resources the lie that they can just 'show up' and not work is stupid, even for you. It is more likely a lawyer in a big firm or the DoJ, who is part of a big team can just 'show up' while letting others on the team do all the heavy lifting.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
First, most, the vast majority, of lawyers are stupid. That's why they chose law school, a simple liberal art.
Outside of that, your response is an appeal to moderation. Sure, some better lawyers might take a job as a pubic pretender or prosecutor to ticket punch, but most take what they can get.
As for "outgunned..." Most pubic pretenders don't give a real shit about their clients. They are on a case mill where completing one gets them paid and the faster and least work per case gets them the most money. Why the fuck would they care that they're defending some asshole that is being charged with a felony for the third time?
Liars... err, lawyers, at big firms know people and are somebodies. That's far more important than their being a liar... err, lawyer.
QP!
Verified User
As i have told you before you need to stop citing fallacies as you do not understand them and ALWAYS cite them wrongly.
An 'appeal to moderation' is to say the 'middle position between two other points is true simply because it is the middle' and i made no such claim.
What i did was address your fallacy in making a universal claim saying all public defenders were poor lawyers when that IS NOT true.
Some may be and others are not, just as in any other area of the law so when you use that to try and indict Jackson simply pointing at her public defender work you are using a fallacy.
But again you will argue against this as you have NEVER used a fallacy correctly. You do not understand them.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
QP!
Verified User
if you read my post and cannot see how it followed DIRECTLY from what you said that is on you and your stupidity. But more likely you again do not know what the words you use mean.
Same for your use of ad hominem as my post directly rebuts exactly what you said. But again when it comes to you 'words...how do they work?', has to be the default.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
QP!
Verified User
no read it again. And try to be less stupid.
It is directly at the core of your post.
You pushed a position that ALL PUBLIC DEFENSE lawyers are dumb. I replied saying some might be but others are not. You replied WRONGLY my post was a fallacy when it is not. It is factually true and you even repeated it.
But you are stupid and keep using words you do not understand so when i reply DIRECTLY to the core of your post you call it a fallacy wrongly and then use ad hominem wrongly.