The NYT, under a headline about “A Transformative Justice”:
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will help make the Supreme Court look like the nation but will have little power to halt its rightward trajectory.
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman confirmed to the Supreme Court, will in one sense transform it. Once she replaces Justice Stephen G. Breyer, one of the 108 white men who preceded her, the court will look a lot more like the nation it serves. … there will be two Black justices. And a Latina.
U.S. Census says that the percentage of Americans who identified as Black in 2020 was 12.4 percent. If a numerate person were setting up racial quotas for the Supreme Court, therefore, just 1 out of 9 justices (11.1 percent) would identify as Black. With 22.2 percent Black justices, for those who “see color”, the Supreme Court will actually look less like the nation it serves.
Maybe it isn’t about the skin color criterion established by President Biden, but about socioeconomics. Wikipedia says that Ketanji went to Harvard undergrad, then Harvard Law School, and is married to a surgeon from a “Boston Brahmin” (i.e., rich) family. So someone from a household containing two Harvard graduates and enjoying an income of at least $1 million per year will make the Supreme Court look like more of a cross-section of typical Americans?
Separately, let’s look at microaggressions from the world’s nerds. Microsoft Word recognizes “Ketanji” as a legitimate word/name yet here in a text area on Google Chrome it is flagged as a spelling error. (Who else on Planet Earth has a first name of “Ketanji”?)
From CNN:
The Senate confirmed President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson on Thursday in a historic vote… Vice President Kamala Harris, the first Black woman to serve as vice president, presided over the chamber during the historic vote in her capacity as president of the Senate. … Senate Democrats and the White House have continually highlighted the historic nature of the nomination. … The Senate chamber was packed for the vote, with most senators seated at their desks for the historic occasion.
We have all just witnessed a historic event. What will change as a result of this rich Harvard graduate joining the Supreme Court?
Finally, if Ketanji Brown Jackson were to change her gender ID to “man”, thus disqualifying himself from the job under the race+gender ID criteria established by President Biden, would he be subject to impeachment? CNN seems to think that Ketanji Brown Jackson and 2SLGBTQQIA+ are related topics:
Notice the ad at right regarding a TV biography of Elizabeth Holmes, who certainly made history as the first teenage multi-billionaire founder of a chemistry company without any degree in chemistry.
Related:
- “The Nation’s Latino Population Is Defined by Its Youth” (Pew): “Nearly half of U.S.-born Latinos are younger than 18” (i.e., a Supreme Court that looked more like the nation it serves should have a 20-year-old Latinx justice)
- Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (Wikipedia): a case that Justice Jackson will be sitting out due to potential conflict (maybe an Asian could get into Harvard if he/she/ze/they changed his/her/zir/their name to “Ketanji”?)
Now we have a Supreme Court justice whose main qualifications to this very powerful post are higher levels of melanin and having a vagina.
Though, after having total incompetent with Alzheimer’s elected as President it’s not surprising at all. Flavius Honorius redux?
Janice Rogers Brown would have been the first black woman on the supreme ct, except Joe Biden blocked her nomination 17 years ago.
Hmmm… Joe Biden is credited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janice_Rogers_Brown with obstructing her progress!
“In July of 2005, Senator Joe Biden appeared on Face the Nation, and said he expected a filibuster to prevent Brown from becoming a Supreme Court justice.”
In only 17 years, Joe Biden has become much less prejudiced against people who identify as Black women!
Interesting statements by Obama in the Wikipedia link:
It is simply intellectually dishonest and logically incoherent to suggest that somehow the Constitution recognizes an unlimited right to do what you want with your private property and yet does not recognize a right to privacy that would forbid the Government from intruding in your bedroom. Yet that seems to be the manner in which Justice Brown would interpret our most cherished document.
This quote (which exemplifies Democrat “logic”) suggests that Obama was in favor of privacy back then. Compare to the Atlantic (!) article (Obama’s Parting Blow Against Privacy) from 2017:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/a-parting-blow-against-privacy/513026/
(To Obama’s credit, he supported privacy for 2SLGBTQQIA+ members by pardoning Chelsea Manning but refused doing the same for white male oppressor Snowden (https://www.theverge.com/2016/11/21/13697072/obama-snowden-pardon-nsa-trump-pompeo))
Like most government jobs, the lion kingdom suspects the needs of the supreme court are far below even the most minimal standards of having the right skin color. Guess the mane impacts of this supreme court are going to be freedom of speech in the Greenspun blog & right to repair.
The supreme court is obviously now very opposed to blogs that make fun of Greenspunchussets. Sounds like right to repair is going the same way that DRM did 20 years ago, no matter who is in power.
Will she be driving herself to the Supreme Court? As she and her husband make (well) more than 300,000 a year, according to Forbes, the insane increase in gas prices will not be a hardship for her family.
We can never have enough rich Harvard graduates on the Supreme Court! In fact, we may have to expand the Court to accommodate more of them so that the Court more accurately reflects our society as a whole!
I quote Frasier Crane from Frasier: Season 2: Episode 12:
“Frasier : You don’t understand. It’s not the same as Dad being wrong, or your being wrong. I have a degree from Harvard. Whenever I’m wrong, the world makes a little less SENSE!”
Here’s the video, but the first three crucial sentences are redacted, as the lone commenter notices. Harvard can never be blamed for being wrong, unless you pay for the full Paramount video version.
“Notice the ad at right regarding a TV biography of Elizabeth Holmes, who certainly made history as the first teenage multi-billionaire founder of a chemistry company without any degree in chemistry.
Stanford / chemical engineering sounds impressive. I am not sure how one Holmes was selling C++ compilers to Chinese universities. Was this a Holmes recompile of GCC with some spy ware as value add ? Why would they buy a C++ compiler from Holmes ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holmes
Education Stanford University
Occupation Businesswoman
In 2002, Holmes attended Stanford, where she studied chemical engineering and worked as a student researcher and laboratory assistant in the School of Engineering.[11]
During high school, she was interested in computer programming and says she started her first business selling C++ compilers to Chinese universities
It does sound strange. In 1999, when Red Flag Linux was first released (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Flag_Linux), she must have been 15. So much for the Chinese being behind.
Of course, perhaps she had contacts (some equivalent of the Big Guy) and sold Visual Studio at a markup.
Selling free GNU gcc compiler to universities would be great training to sell fake tests to pharmacies!