The Ketanji Jackson shitshow just keeps going

[Reg Volk]

The vast majority of people in power positions who happen to be female, black, Hispanic, etc. got to where they were by merit. However, when people see appointees like Ketanji Jackson, who CLEARLY got her position because of identity boxes she checked, it perpetuates the stereotype that DEI is the reason for all their success. Therefore, they need to work even harder to prove they deserve to be the position they’re in. We may set a record for 8-1 Supreme Court decisions. 🙄

Edited April 5 by Reg Volk

[robosmith]

40 minutes ago, Reg Volk said:

The vast majority of people in power positions who happen to be female, black, Hispanic, etc. got to where they were by merit. However, when people see appointees like Ketanji Jackson, who CLEARLY got her position because of identity boxes she checked, it perpetuates the stereotype that DEI is the reason for all their success. Therefore, they need to work even harder to prove they deserve to be the position they’re in. We may set a record for 8-1 Supreme Court decisions. 🙄

You're just LYING your ass off ^here Canuck, which is WHY you have NO EVIDENCE.

Quote

Ketanji Brown Jackson brought broader judicial experience to the Supreme Court than most sitting justices, including nearly nine years as a federal trial and appellate judge and experience as a public defender. She is the first justice with federal public defender experience and, at her nomination, had more trial court experience than any sitting justice. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Judicial Experience Comparison

• Trial & Appellate Balance: Jackson served on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (8 years) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, making her only the second sitting justice to serve at all three levels of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court.
• Combined Experience: Jackson had more years of experience as a judge than four of the sitting justices (Thomas, Roberts, Kagan, and Barrett) combined at the time of her nomination.
• Sotomayor Comparison: Like Justice Sotomayor, she brought crucial trial court (District Court) experience, which was rare among the other justices who often came directly from appellate courts. [1, 2, 3]

Professional and Educational Background

• Public Defender: Jackson is the first Supreme Court Justice with substantial experience as a federal public defender, providing a perspective on criminal justice not present on the court since Thurgood Marshall.
• Sentencing Commission: She served as Vice-Chair for the U.S. Sentencing Commission, giving her specialized expertise in federal sentencing policy.
• Education & Clerkships: Similar to other justices, she has elite credentials, including Harvard Law School, and served as a Supreme Court clerk (for Justice Stephen Breyer).

 

Edited April 5 by robosmith

[Deluge]

14 hours ago, robosmith said:

You're just LYING your ass off ^here Canuck, which is WHY you have NO EVIDENCE.

 

robowoke is a self-appointed spokeswokeperson for that diversity hire and all left-wing Africans in America. 

[Fluffypants]

After she asks questions they need to play this.

 

[BeaverFever]

16 hours ago, Reg Volk said:

The vast majority of people in power positions who happen to be female, black, Hispanic, etc. got to where they were by merit. However, when people see appointees like Ketanji Jackson, who CLEARLY got her position because of identity boxes she checked, it perpetuates the stereotype that DEI is the reason for all their success. Therefore, they need to work even harder to prove they deserve to be the position they’re in. We may set a record for 8-1 Supreme Court decisions. 🙄

Your bullshit claims are made even more hilarious by the clown car of massively unqualified (not just “less qualified”) hacks and charlatans appointed in the Trump administration,  where the lack of qualifications was a feature not a bug because they said qualified people were part of the “establishment elite”  and devotion to Trump is the only identity box that needs to be checked. 
 

Also as further proof of your ignorant BS, there have been exactly zero 8-1 decisions especially with Brown being the lone dissenter 

[Reg Volk]

 

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

Your bullshit claims are made even more hilarious by the clown car of massively unqualified (not just “less qualified”) hacks and charlatans appointed in the Trump administration,  where the lack of qualifications was a feature not a bug because they said qualified people were part of the “establishment elite”  and devotion to Trump is the only identity box that needs to be checked. 
 

Also as further proof of your ignorant BS, there have been exactly zero 8-1 decisions especially with Brown being the lone dissenter 

Ketanji Brown Jackson was a DEI hire, and she's proving to be the dumbest appointee ever.  It's too bad Obama didn't get the complete fool Merrick Garland approved, as he'd be the only one dumber than Brown if he had made it to the bench.  

[Legato]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

Also as further proof of your ignorant BS, there have been exactly zero 8-1 decisions especially with Brown being the lone dissenter 

As further proof.

Frequency: 8-1 decisions, along with 7-2, make up roughly 15% of Supreme Court decisions, behind 9-0 and 5-4 splits.

Recent Examples: The Court issued an 8-1 ruling on April 1, 2026, regarding a Colorado ban on conversion therapy.

Context: The Supreme Court hears roughly 80 cases per term, with many resulting in high consensus (9-0 or 8-1). 

[BeaverFever]

44 minutes ago, Reg Volk said:

 

Ketanji Brown Jackson was a DEI hire, and she's proving to be the dumbest appointee ever.  It's too bad Obama didn't get the complete fool Merrick Garland approved, as he'd be the only one dumber than Brown if he had made it to the bench.  

See my earlier post 

[BeaverFever]

3 minutes ago, Legato said:

As further proof.

Frequency: 8-1 decisions, along with 7-2, make up roughly 15% of Supreme Court decisions, behind 9-0 and 5-4 splits.

Recent Examples: The Court issued an 8-1 ruling on April 1, 2026, regarding a Colorado ban on conversion therapy.

Context: The Supreme Court hears roughly 80 cases per term, with many resulting in high consensus (9-0 or 8-1). 

Ok there has been exactly ONE this term and it was just a few days ago I stand corrected. I see no right-tards were upset when Alito or Clarence Thomas were the lone dissenters in  previous terms. 

[Reg Volk]

2 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

 

Also as further proof of your ignorant BS, there have been exactly zero 8-1 decisions especially with Brown being the lone dissenter 

Good grief, how dumb are you.

Quote

In a 8-1 ruling on March 31, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors, siding with a therapist who argued the law violated her First Amendment free speech rights. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenter, arguing the ruling impermissibly interferes with states' rights to regulate medical care and risks harm. 

 

20 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Ok there has been exactly ONE this term and it was just a few days ago I stand corrected. I see no right-tards were upset when Alito or Clarence Thomas were the lone dissenters in  previous terms. 

because those guys know what they are doing, Brown is a moreon DEI hire.  That's the difference.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Reg Volk said:

 

Ketanji Brown Jackson was a DEI hire, and she's proving to be the dumbest appointee ever.  It's too bad Obama didn't get the complete fool Merrick Garland approved, as he'd be the only one dumber than Brown if he had made it to the bench.  

LMAO. NO EVIDENCE ^HERE of KBJ being dumb, just gratuitous ad hominems.

But there is plenty of EVIDENCE that you STRUCK OUT with your fake youtube/podcast.

[WestCanMan]

20 hours ago, Reg Volk said:

 

 

"When in Rome, doing as Romans do, you're guilty of cultural appropriation, you racist piece of shit." - Ketanji Jackson, from the SC, last Tuesday. 

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

"When in Rome, doing as Romans do, you're guilty of cultural appropriation, you racist piece of shit." - Ketanji Jackson, from the SC, last Tuesday. 

No results found for Ketanji Brown Jackson "When in Rome, doing as Romans do, you're guilty of cultural appropriation, you racist piece of shit.".

So you LIED about ^this. Why?

[gatomontes99]

21 hours ago, robosmith said:

You're just LYING your ass off ^here Canuck, which is WHY you have NO EVIDENCE.

 

She's so stupid that even the liberal justices are like "girl, youz vest be shuttin that whole."

Ketanji Brown Jackson is so clueless she got a lecture from Sotomayor after being only one to dissent

27 minutes ago, robosmith said:

No results found for Ketanji Brown Jackson "When in Rome, doing as Romans do, you're guilty of cultural appropriation, you racist piece of shit.".

So you LIED about ^this. Why?

Oh my gawd, it was satire dumbasṣ. Holly fook. 

[CdnFox]

[Nationalist]

I think Jackson was trying to show that if she goes to Japan and is caught stealing, she would be subject to Japanese law.

And that's true. She could be jailed...and/or...deported.

Basically, she inadvertently made a case for removing citizenship for the anchor baby and deporting the family.

[CdnFox]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I think Jackson was trying to show that if she goes to Japan and is caught stealing, she would be subject to Japanese law.

 

In essence. She was trying to argue what the words" have jurisdiction over' mean. 

Basically the US constitution refers to ctiizenship at one point has 'Having allegance ' in essence. If a person is born to parents to who have allegiance to the state then they must be citizens.

Some interpret that to mean the country to which you hold your allegiance or citizenship.  If you are 'beholden' to a country or a citizens of that country then that country has jurisdiction over you, even tho you may be subject to the laws of another country while you are there.  There is a strong argument for that. 

She is arguing that because the state can impose it's legal powers on you while you're visiting, you are therefore in that state's "jurisdiction", meaning that you are subject to it's laws and that this equates to 'allegiance' albeit temporary. And she argues that because of this any child you have while you are in that state must therefore be a citizen. 

Hence  the rebuttal  "does that mean if i commit a crime in japan and i'm subject to their laws i'm japanese?"   Basically the argument is silly, if it were accepted as true then any tourist visiting the us would be a citizen.  She's trying to argue that while they're in america they're under american jurisdiction and the constitution would recognize that as being the same as having allegiance and therefore any births while in the US would automatically be citizens as well, being the children of temporary citizens so to speak.  

Basically she's a dumb binch. 

 

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I think Jackson was trying to show that if she goes to Japan and is caught stealing, she would be subject to Japanese law.

And that's true. She could be jailed...and/or...deported.

Basically, she inadvertently made a case for removing citizenship for the anchor baby and deporting the family.

No, she didn't. There are two conditions for citizenship:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

Born is straightforward and self explanatory. "Subject to the jurisdiction" is the only part that could potentially require interpretation. And even then it's not really in question. Is the person somehow exempted from the legal jurisdiction of the United States? (Is it the child of the French ambassador, etc.?) Nope? Then that person is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

That's what Brown is pointing out and it certainly does not make a case for overturning birthright citizenship.  

What's happening here is that the administration just doesn't like the idea of birthright citizenship. They don't actually think the law is being wrongly interpreted, they just wish the problem would go away. As a consequence, they are advancing an entirely specious legal argument on the off chance that this weird SCOTUS will fold again. They aren't going to. It's a dead argument. If they want to change the law they'll need an amendment. Not gonna happen. 

[Nationalist]

9 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

In essence. She was trying to argue what the words" have jurisdiction over' mean. 

Basically the US constitution refers to ctiizenship at one point has 'Having allegance ' in essence. If a person is born to parents to who have allegiance to the state then they must be citizens.

Some interpret that to mean the country to which you hold your allegiance or citizenship.  If you are 'beholden' to a country or a citizens of that country then that country has jurisdiction over you, even tho you may be subject to the laws of another country while you are there.  There is a strong argument for that. 

She is arguing that because the state can impose it's legal powers on you while you're visiting, you are therefore in that state's "jurisdiction", meaning that you are subject to it's laws and that this equates to 'allegiance' albeit temporary. And she argues that because of this any child you have while you are in that state must therefore be a citizen. 

Hence  the rebuttal  "does that mean if i commit a crime in japan and i'm subject to their laws i'm japanese?"   Basically the argument is silly, if it were accepted as true then any tourist visiting the us would be a citizen.  She's trying to argue that while they're in america they're under american jurisdiction and the constitution would recognize that as being the same as having allegiance and therefore any births while in the US would automatically be citizens as well, being the children of temporary citizens so to speak.  

Basically she's a dumb binch. 

 

I agree. She's a dumb binch. 

[Nationalist]

2 minutes ago, Hodad said:

No, she didn't. There are two conditions for citizenship:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside"

Born is straightforward and self explanatory. "Subject to the jurisdiction" is the only part that could potentially require interpretation. And even then it's not really in question. Is the person somehow exempted from the legal jurisdiction of the United States? (Is it the child of the French ambassador, etc.?) Nope? Then that person is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. 

That's what Brown is pointing out and it certainly does not make a case for overturning birthright citizenship.  

What's happening here is that the administration just doesn't like the idea of birthright citizenship. They don't actually think the law is being wrongly interpreted, they just wish the problem would go away. As a consequence, they are advancing an entirely specious legal argument on the off chance that this weird SCOTUS will fold again. They aren't going to. It's a dead argument. If they want to change the law they'll need an amendment. Not gonna happen. 

Look...when America was a fledgling nation, they needed more people. That has changed.

However the SCOTUS is full of absolutionists who will side with the letter of the constitution. That worked for abortion...its likely not gonna work for this. But...today that law is outdated and destructive.

[Hodad]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Look...when America was a fledgling nation, they needed more people. That has changed.

However the SCOTUS is full of absolutionists who will side with the letter of the constitution. That worked for abortion...its likely not gonna work for this. But...today that law is outdated and destructive.

You're welcome to that opinion. 

Meanwhile, the legal argument is the legal argument, and this one is impossibly flimsy. The SCOTUS justices aren't having any of it. Not the originalists, not the literalists and not the pragmatists. 

You really can't call them "activist judges" one day and the next chastise them for a faithful reading of plain law. Some legal challenges are are nuanced or a close call that requires intervention and interpretation. This is not one of them. 

[Nationalist]

5 minutes ago, Hodad said:

You're welcome to that opinion. 

Meanwhile, the legal argument is the legal argument, and this one is impossibly flimsy. The SCOTUS justices aren't having any of it. Not the originalists, not the literalists and not the pragmatists. 

You really can't call them "activist judges" one day and the next chastise them for a faithful reading of plain law. Some legal challenges are are nuanced or a close call that requires intervention and interpretation. This is not one of them. 

Sure it is. And I would expect Congress will address it if the SCOTUS rejects the EO.

[Hodad]

35 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Sure it is. And I would expect Congress will address it if the SCOTUS rejects the EO.

SCOTUS will reject the EO. Congress will not do anything about it. They are light years away from getting a constitutional amendment. They will not burn the political capital on a lost cause. 

 

[Nationalist]

33 minutes ago, Hodad said:

SCOTUS will reject the EO. Congress will not do anything about it. They are light years away from getting a constitutional amendment. They will not burn the political capital on a lost cause. 

 

I need to ask you, why on earth would you want to give citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens?

[Hodad]

40 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I need to ask you, why on earth would you want to give citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens?

Eh, it's not that I'm setting out to recruit undocumented immigrants, but at the same time, people are people. We don't have a caste system. I'm not much concerned with the country or origin or the color of their skin. Once they are born here they are citizens like any other and as long as they work to build that better life, we're all better off for it.  The American dream is that someone can start with nothing and through hard work and talent build something. People who share that dream are okay in my book. They're not taking from anybody, but rather adding to.

Realistically, as a population, immigrants (of all types) are net contributors. They fill vital roles that Americans aren't interested in. They aren't entitled. They have generally escaped much worse circumstances and aren't afraid of hard work to keep the opportunity they have gained for their families. They are generally community and family oriented, "good" people. On the whole, they commit crime at lower rates than the rest of the population. The kids study hard and their parents dream of sending them to college and the next generation having even more access and opportunity. 

Immigrants built this country. And all along there has been resistance from "nativist" groups, but all along immigrants have added to and enriched America. There's no reason to think that will change.  IIRC, about half of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or first generation Americans, and they are vastly overrepresented in the leadership of those companies. Again, closing in on 50% of CEOs. And there are no free rides in the C-Suite. It's about as cutthroat as it gets. But look at Microsoft, Google, IBM, Anthropic etc., etc.  Or Musk and his half dozen companies. All are being run by immigrants or children of immigrants. These people are major contributors to growth and innovation.

You never know who's going to cure cancer or crack the code on some other big problem. Human potential is human potential. Let's not squander it because of irrational prejudices.