Ask Trump, McConnell and there supreme court nominees. By your definition none of them were qualified. And neither was Clarence Thomas. Imagine that 4 unqualified judges sitting on the supreme court and all republican appointees. Now you got me worried as I never considered this. Thank you!
@@jameshouston5017 Yes I would if the nominee had no work experience like a lot of the Trump, McConnell nominees. But the problem for republicans is this nominee is very "WELL" qualified and they know it.
Uh... that means both of them do not believe in religious liberty, according to the Constitution. The Constitution also states, " SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, PERIOD"
It's obvious you have never watched a hearing on judges being accepted into the supreme Court. Because those personal views are asked by both parties to ALL people up for the position of supreme Court judge SHOWS YOUR BIAS AND PARTISAN POINT OF VIEW 🤨🧐😂🤣
Article 3 gives NO interpretation powers to the Supreme Court. They serve in good behavior or they can be impeached. This includes all federal government appointments.
Hundreds of people that were more highly qualified for the job. Today's world you cannot have your own opinion and you will be called a racist. Bizarro world
You can express your opinion all that you want.. just understand that if you spew racist sentiments then you have proven yourself to be a racist and shouldn’t be that surprised when people label you as such.
biden chooses liberal woke activists who support criminals, not the law and victims. These two didn't seem as obvious, but the past ones all but came right and said it.
“… nine justices and that justices should not be added ? “ . Hark ! A straight “ Yes “ or “ No” answer to a specific question seems SO complicated and difficult for SOME nominees, knowing that HONESTY might reveal personal attitude.
Any Supreme Court nominee picked based off the color of their skin, their ability to follow orders, and promote racism as a poverty pimp puppet then they should be rejected.
Do you guys have "the cause of justice" charge in US though? Stupid charge that should not exist...implies judiciary acts in a political capacity in that instance.
@@darkheart407 what’s so scary about it. We’ve had 37 “unqualified “ racist white men on the bench and we survived them. I think that we will survive a single black woman on the bench.
Neither will get appointed. Just watch. This is nothing more than a dog and pony show. We still have a few good ones left in Congress (thank you Cruz and Cotton, Goetz, etc) they will prevent it.
If Biden nominated her, she's gotta be left of left, but that Jackson-Akiwumi doesn't duck and dodge like so many of them. I'd vote no based solely who nominated her. Nothing personal.
Obama nominee when Harry Reid and his then aid Faiz Shakir later Bernie’s camp mgr installed a radical DC court. Now Pakistani PM in Russia taking about RUS CH India and Pakistani oil and gas lines
@@johnhumphrey9953 If the court system were bound by precedent, there would be no way to reverse a poor ruling. What purpose would such a system serve?
Either of these 2 Radical Democrat Terrorists do not belong on the Supreme Court. It's not about color it's about their ideology. I would love to see all Supreme Court justices look and think like Justice Clarence Thomas.
One PERVERTED, ONE RACIST got through why not let this one's pass they look OVER QUALIFIED and...you just say no because they don't have PEDOPHILE or PREDATOR rap sheed right?
When skin color and gender are more important than qualifications and loyalty to the Constitution, our country can never reach its full potential. At least Ketanji's got nice teeth.
Hmmm. Given that for the first 200 years Of this countries existence,skin color was a major factor in American politics and government with preferential treatment given to the white men and skin color barred black and brown people from participation in our “democracy”, I think that this country will survive a period when those “white affirmative action” programs are no longer the norm
@@napoleonruss1528 Hmmm. But were those white men better qualified? Shouldn't that always be the criteria if you're going to be your best as a country is my point?
@@jimgallagher2979 37 of those white men had no experience on the bench. That was 200 years if untethered “affirmative action” for mediocre unqualified white men. But forget the history when it’s inconvenient to you.
@@jimgallagher2979 Small history lesson. Negro Act of 1740 made it illegal for blacks to learn how to read and write, grow their own food, earn money, etc. Since then there have been barriers put in place. Yet people ignore that and question qualifications. Also, if you over 30 you should know through life experience the most qualified don't always the get job.
How is he illegitimate? Didn't he win both the popular and electoral vote? I don't recall any foreign government attempting to influence the outcome of the election for Biden.
There is not, & never will be any limits on any of our God-Given Constitutional Rights, & Civil Liberties that we the people have. Anyone who believes there should be, & that there are limits. They should not be able or allowed to be on the supreme Court or in government period.
Natural Rights and "Civil Liberties" really means forcing some people to work for other people using government force. It used to be a right to refuse service for any reason. Now that Civil Rights regime has become a Forced Contracting regime that now empowers LGBT to make you participate in their religious events as workers. Using this power they target Christians only to force them to make unique cakes, photograph the event, design a website (new SCOTUS case). This is indentured servitude, not merely equal accommodation at a diner open to the general public. The only winners of the "Civil Rights" regime are the Gewish lawyers to make bank destroying whites and Christians whom they hate in the first place.
hate to break it to you but there are limits on the first amendment since it only prevents the government from infringing on free speech but not your employer
@@justinedwards5021 The Supreme Court did no such thing. All they did was throw out the action against that baker over the commission's anti-religious bias. They did not strike down the 'forced work' law. The only reason the baker won is because the commission made public statements. So the Indentured Servitude push is still going to force Christians to participate in homosexual events.
Well actually the other lady gave fantastic answers, her answers implied judicial activism but unlike 90% of nominees who give piss poor answers she tactfully answered em. Jackson was lucky coz all she had to do was repeat her.
@@bobbyboucher187 but it was the other lady who gave those - I wouldn't say thoughtful but tactful answers. The SCOTUS pick was lucky to be following her. And Cotton should've asked her first coz by that time itself she was under consideration.
@@bobbyboucher187 Thoughtful or not, they deliberately failed to give any insight on how they would actually be as judges. Words are cheap, their past record is what's important.
Yeah what happened to the best person for the job. Let’s see 13% of Americans are black. Of that 13% how many went to college let alone law school And became a judge. This administration is a joke
“ Talk around the question “ is out wrong slither DITHER , done by those nominees that ACT indecisive. They KNOW that they will practice devious ACTIVISM.
Señor, you're still going back. Thank you for supporting Trump and all but your not part of the club unless you're lineage goes back prior to the civil war.
@@beforeyourimmigrants8471 SURE IT DOES. TX HOMEBORN ALL AROUND EVEN AS FAR AS CHRISTOPHER COLUMBUS APACHE BLOOD MIXED BREED. AMERICAN FATHER AND MEXICAN MOTHER. HOW DO YOU DO SIR.
@@xIGOTUx1 You still don't make the cut. You're going back as soon as we can get Trumps long-term agenda in place. No Asians, Arabs, Mestizo, Spanish, Indians, Africans or Caribbeans.
I love it when they say “ My personal views would not affect my decision making.” Liberal judges are selected so their personal views will affect their decision making.
You have to give her credit she does not like to rubbbb her genitals on to other women, get DRUNK then scream I LIKE BEAR. and.....check last 2 justice they did express the same "my personal views.....please do the research before commenting a Blablabla
Amy Coney Barret refused to answer numerous questions about her personal views and even on established precedent and conservative judges are selected for the same reason.
@@deweyseymour4268 As declared by founder, It is a Marxists organization! And members of the group HAVE committed terrorists acts! Cannot be truthfully denied!
We need a strong, black voice, in a woman, in the place of say, Lindsey Graham in the GOP. Someone like Candice Owen's to question the left's contenders.
Candace Owens is that all the conservatives have to represent them? Is she the Republicans Black woman pitbull because they're not brave enough to ask difficult questions? Candace is an Oreo she thinks she's too good to marry a Black man.
that woman isnt really black she is just pretending .candice its ok if you want to be white theres lots of places that do a good bleaching job.Strong is not a word i would use with candice.Crazy,blind ,stupid,Those are the words that spring to mind with candice
It’s a shame that I can’t feel comfortable knowing that these two people are the most qualified candidates America has to offer. I miss the meritocracy. Hiring people based on skin color is the ultimate form of racism.
Why are you all so narrow-minded? You should be grateful that Trump is no president anymore. With his whining voice, blaming everything to the Democrats, taking credit away from them... All of you, little lap dogs, are followers. That's why you are incapable of seeing what he is all about! How sad! This is why he abuses his power, thinks he is cute, and steals our tax money. So, if he were to tell you to jump from a mountain into a precipice, will you?
If that question," Does the US Constitution allow anyone to be treated differently because of their race?", has any merit whatsoever than why are these nominees here for anything other than their race and gender. Seems to me that they are here because of their race. That is why there are no nominees ALLOWED here that have a SKIN COLOR lighter than a certain shade of brown. No matter who is picked for this SCOTUS position it will be because of their skin color and gender and NOT because they are the most qualified. Another example of the left keeping racism alive and pounding you on the head with it if you dare disagree with them. If you are called a racist it does NOT mean you discriminate. It means that you disagree with them, you are a 'racist' despite your skin color. So if Larry Elder can be 'The black face of white supremacy', than what the hell is this if not racism?
because they are qualified. here's a question...if people haven't been treated differently because of their race, whey was the court made up solely of white men until Thurgood Marshall was named to the bench? Think it out paul clown...I'll wait.
So you dislike the black President the guy that’s white but like blacks and these two black women hmm 🤨 I think we found the only issue you really have 🤷🏿♂️
Giving up a little too soon, ya Mark? Dont let a few well placed criminals lead you to believe America is gone.There arent as many as they pretend. The loud mouths, multiple fake accounts might make it seem like we are out numbered, but thats not true.Besides, Shit hasnt even gotten real yet. After litigation war, if the justice system is too infilterated, then it goes to the streets. You might want to ditch the defeatest attitude and stock up on the pemmican, salt and antibiotics.. This is far from over.
@@brieziethirteen13 you sound like those southerners in 1860. They took the loss and have been losing every since. I'm afraid the America you once knew is no more. if you believe that anything outside of the ballot box is an option then you are sadly mistaken.
I'm sure they are qualified, but this is so wrong. We now put race in front of other deserving nominees. The squad owns him, and this is why the world is crumbling around us.
I don't know about that, I really don't. What if this is his was of repenting for all the racism he thought throughout the years. If the squad was behind him, why would they be giving a response to the state of the union? Do we now have three parties? The answer might be yes, yes indeed.
Great way to set the criteria for a Supreme Court nomination. Black and female. Now I have zero problems with either of those, but that surely limits the people vastly qualified to be nominates.
Been happening since the beginning of time but now since it’s black woman you whites have something to say stfu I thght racism doesn’t exist anymore ain’t that what y’all been telling us 🤷🏿♂️
Since complexion and gender were Jotato’s sole criteria for choosing a nominee, shouldn’t the most heavily complected and/or most feminine candidate have been selected?
Neither are qualified. They both agreed to having personal feelings on the implementation for limitations and restrictions upon the Bill of Rights (the Supreme Law of the People) by the federal and state governments thus deferring to said limitations abd restrictions under previous court opinions which in turn establish precedence. This directly violates the enumeration of rights clauses per Amendment IX and Amendment X. No more judicial nominees, let every life-long appointee die off one by one until this egregious overreach self corrects this sinking liberal ship to Hell.
For certain, neither of those nominees expressed prudent DECLARATION ADHERENCE to doctrines specified in the Constitution. Any slithering, other response is self- disqualifying .
@@rustytrombone8011 that has nothing whatsoever to do with my comment. Just a typical leftist insult, due to the fact that you can’t make an argument. You could have just told me that I am not black and therefore not at their level.
@@rustytrombone8011 ,Your “guess” is worthless as your remarks, here and elsewhere. Instead of trying to show off, sit front of mirror and amuse self with your nonsense, jack !
"The religious organization can be included". No, "it is included". Not, "can be". That means the nominees are saying "not all the time it is included but can be." Which is bull$h**
We have had enough nominees come up to Congress and lie about specific subjects that it's hard for me to believe them. I highly doubt either of these two women would support my second amendment rights or first amendment rights if I used them in ways that are not in line with the left's narrative. Nor do I believe if I was clearly and obviously discriminated against would they rule in my favor.
It doesn't really matter does it? The first hint of gun confiscations will spark a revolt against the government, and don't think just Republicans own and are willing to protect that right. Blue Dogs, and libs are so very different. I also have a feeling Blue Dogs will help vote out this administration. I'm republican, but I'm smart enough to know there are decent Democrats, few and far between, but there is.
I wonder when will folks wise up, and start doing the same thing the other side has been doing for decades. Put in a litmus test, instead of hiring folks who will please Blue States.
You do know that there is more to the constitution than the 2nd and 1st amendments? If the Second amendment was repealed today would you feel less safe in America?
Exactly. The other lady was very smart in answering Cotton's questions than the current SCOTUS nominee. All these noms give lazy answers such as ill follow precedent, it was years ago blah blah answers but she was very methodical.
If one of these people get appointed I hope they are so proud of getting this job based on race and not on merit. If they are the best for the job we will not know it. Isn't this a form of racism?
Been happening since the beginning of time but now it’s black women everyone is ready to discuss racism I thght it wasn’t around anymore that’s what we been getting told for years
Secularism is a religon. The belief in the "absence of religon" is, in and of it's self, a religon. We need start acknowledging this fact. Secularism has just as many politicaly driven moralistic tenets as any other religon.
It should have gone this way: "Judge, does the US Constitution allow people to be treated differently because of their race?" No, Senator. "Judge, do you support Affirmative Action?"
@@williamnichols199 Follow-up question: "But what if those laws and rulings are clearly a violation of that Constitutional principle?" I realize SCOTUS can only deal with cases that are brought to it. It's time someone brought Affirmative Action laws in areas of life other than college admissions to SCOTUS. The precedent set in Bakke of applying strict scrutiny needs to be re-examined. The idea that a state has a compelling interest in artificially creating a racially diverse student body is nonsense. A state's compelling interest in higher education is that the best and brightest are given top consideration regardless of demographic factors, especially factors made illegal as discriminators in the Consitution.
@@rangersmith4652 why does affirmative action both you so? Do you actually think Donald Trump was the best qualified candidate to get into Wharton School of Business at the Univ. of Pennsylvania? Would you agree that the white America has benefitted from their color for the bulk of the existence of this country?
@@ericsniper9843 I have never examined the admission policies of Wharton not Trump's vitae. And I would agree that for a period in American history, being white had advantages. It certainly does not today. America once made the grave error of favoring members of one race over another. We learn from this, fix it, and move on. But how we fix it matters a great deal. Affirmative Action is an attempt to make something fair by giving an advantage once held by one to the other instead. Imagine a race between two horses. They are required to carry the same total weight, and a weigh-is accomplished. The race is run, and Horse A wins. But in the post-race re-weigh, and error is discovered; Horse B was carrying 10 extra pounds. A rematch is scheduled. Should Horse A now carry an extra 10 pounds, or should extra care be taken to ensure both horses carry the same weight? Affirmative Action answers that question by placing an extra 10 pounds on Horse A. Does that seem OK to you?
@@rangersmith4652 I think there are several factors that schools use to determine exactly who gets to attend a certain school here in America. I like the fact that you did acknowledge whites were given special treatment and this moved into all aspects of our society. When I was a boy I sold the Washington Star newspaper in the early 1970's. There were others who sold newspapers in congressional office buildings. Now when one of those kids would quit the guy on the corner would move up. I was advised when a vacancy was available in the Cannon Office Building that I would not be receiving that assignment because this one white family with several sons would pass it on to the next son. I was shocked and for the first time understood the benefits that whites received in this country. I eventually took over the Hart Senate Building in the fall of 1973. I worked twice as hard and twice as long to receive something a white kid was just given.
Why are we even at this point? NOONE nominated for a public position only after being qualified as a particular race or sex, is a legitimate nominee! "Don't let the door hit you on the way out"
A commitment to justice and fairness is paramount, and as a citizen of the United States of America 🇺🇸 and a Black Man I welcome the two nominations with honor and respect and it's apparent that these two ladies know more about case laws and constitutional law than most care to acknowledge 👍 👏
They'll probably vote to take away our freedom of speech and our right to bear arms if they get half a chance. They're party line players. And the vile Dems will also try to stack the court. I don't care what race they are, they're Leftists and that's bad for our country and our freedom.
From my understanding they can be sworn in on their own religious book. A Jewish candidate would be sworn in on the Tanakh, Christian candidates would be sworn in on the Bible, Muslim candidates would be sworn in on the Quaran, etc. As far as atheists go, I think they should be sworn in on the constitution itself if that would be possible.
Senator Cotton didn't ask what the supreme court thinks he asked what you think you and your evasiveness spoke volumes for your thoughts on the subject
They both seem intelligent, educated, and rather reasonable here. Very different than some of the earlier nominees - "Thank you for the question, Senator...."
What's the disaster? Do a mob storm the U.S. Capitol? Did our country fall apart over the lack of preparation for a pandemic? Please explain your position?
@@davidsuminski4243 I took you down because you were enable to articulate your position. Just remember Kamala Harris is only a heartbeat away from the presidency of the United States of America. You can rest easy at night knowing that she will defend America.
