Stringfellow Hawk
Member
231 years without a black woman on the court was not discrimination or racism. Putting one on is? Try logic.
show me in legislation where it states diversity is required on SCOTUS, that is the logic
231 years without a black woman on the court was not discrimination or racism. Putting one on is? Try logic.
That is exactly what promising a woman's selection does. It disqualifies all the men.
So you wouldn't prefer a brilliant black woman over a not brilliant black woman?
We don't have any problem with a black woman. We just want to make sure we get a brilliant black woman. Hence the question about LSAT.
So you are saying Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't brilliant.It's a very embarrassing way to justify your partisan double-standard.
And Reagan didn't say "brilliant," btw.
When people are nominating a justice, that's kind of assumed.
So you are saying Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't brilliant.
We want the cream of the crop to sit on the SCOTUS and a poor LSAT score would give a clue as to she is a winner or a loser.
Let see her LSAT exam score then. No problems right. She should have scored very high right?It is a matter of public record that Jackson graduated from Harvard with a magna cum laude, and Harvard Law School cum laude.
To put that into context, Kavanaugh graduated from Yale with the lessor cum laude honors, and Yale Law School with no honors whatsoever.
Not when Trump pick on the qualification of brilliance and not just skin color.
Let see her LSAT exam score then. No problems right. She should have scored very high right?
Let see her LSAT exam score then. No problems right. She should have scored very high right?
Ketanji has been reversed by the left-leaning D.C. Circuit multiple times. Her judicial record isn't very good. Certainly not the best the country has to offer.Whether she's "a winner or a loser" as a judge is determined only by her record as a judge. A poor LSAT score no more detracts from a good judicial record than an excellent score would compensate for a poor judicial record.
Depends on her score. Would you agree that we need diversity on the court.If she releases the LSAT scores, will you agree to support her?
they didn't do that, some men were considered early on
It is also racists because Tucker made no such demand for Amy’s LSAT.The whole thing is silly. It assumes there is only one best qualified candidate for SCOTUS at any given time.
There are many. Narrowing the criteria like Reagan, Trump and Biden have is not in any way limiting in terms of quality & intelligence.
It is also racists because Tucker made no such demand for Amy’s LSAT.
We don't have any problem with a black woman. We just want to make sure we get a brilliant black woman. Hence the question about LSAT.
Bravo!So what were Amy Barrett's LSAT scores? How do you know she was a brilliant woman?
Amy Barrett only practiced law for 3 years and appears to have never argued a case in court.
Ketanji Brown practiced law for 9 years including arguing cases in front of appeals courts.
Notre Dame has an average LSAT that is 10 points lower than Harvard.
Notre Dame graduates pass he bar fist time about 89% of the time. Harvard graduates pass it first time about 99%.
Harvard is listed as one of the top 2 law schools in the country. Notre Dame doesn't even make the top 25.
So.. what evidence do you have that Amy Coney Barrett is brilliant? It would appear she is likely be be less qualified based on her record than Kentanji Brown is.