SCOTUS

[kalm]

It had nothing really to do with Jackson, but Graham crushed it when he asked about her religious beliefs. It highlighted why I can't stand liberals these days. I'm no fan of diehards of either party, but run of the mill libs are just as reprehensible.

What exactly did it highlight of reprehensible liberal religious thought for you?

Honestly curious.

[Ivytalk]

It had nothing really to do with Jackson, but Graham crushed it when he asked about her religious beliefs. It highlighted why I can't stand liberals these days. I'm no fan of diehards of either party, but run of the mill libs are just as reprehensible.

You should start the 89Hen Party, because you’re the only person who could meet your high standards.

[UNI88]

It had nothing really to do with Jackson, but Graham crushed it when he asked about her religious beliefs. It highlighted why I can't stand liberals these days. I'm no fan of diehards of either party, but run of the mill libs are just as reprehensible.

You should start the 89Hen Party, because you’re the only person who could meet your high standards.

Jesus might have had a shot but he was probably too liberal.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[SDHornet]

Oh.

[kalm]

Strong and historical piece right here.

Sunday's column

Clack: Like those before her, Jackson serves up grace to make history

San Antonio Express-News
March 25, 2022

On April 22, 1947, one week after Jackie Robinson became the first Black player in modern major league baseball, the Brooklyn Dodgers began hosting the Philadelphia Phillies for a three-game series. Throughout that first game, the Phillies, led by manager Ben Chapman, assaulted Robinson with racist bile.

Before signing Robinson, Dodgers owner Branch Rickey told Robinson he wanted him, during his rookie year, to have the courage to not fight back against the verbal and physical abuse he’d receive. Doing so would jeopardize this “noble experiment” to integrate baseball.

So Robinson listened to Chapman’s taunts and remained silent. But his teammate, Alabama-born Eddie Stanky, did not, yelling at Chapman and the Phillies, “Why don’t you guys go to work on somebody who can fight back? There isn’t one of you has the guts of a louse.”

Robinson’s temperament was to fight back, and he was more than capable of doing so — and would from 1948 on. But for one year, he had to take the abuse so he would not live down to a stereotype and deny opportunities to other players of color.

The Jackie Robinsons in life, trailblazers who look different from those who came before them, those who are the first of their ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual preference to accomplish something, are asked to be more humane than those who preceded them when treated poorly. They’re asked to serve portions of grace in exchange for slices of opportunity. When their talent is undeniable, their temperament is explored as reason to disqualify them.

Stanky’s words — “Why don’t you guys go to work on somebody who can fight back?” — came to mind while watching the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who, if confirmed, would be the first Black woman on the court. They echoed while listening to the interruptions, and the bellowing soliloquies, misrepresentations and interrogations from Sens. Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley.

They weren’t there for a vigorous and respectful intellectual exchange with Jackson or to examine legitimate criticisms of her record, but to perform for those who enjoy the stylings of these Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

No, none of these senators did or said anything resembling Chapman’s treatment of Robinson. But in the manner and tone with which they addressed Jackson, they exploited and enjoyed a double standard not allowed Amy Coney Barrett during her 2020 confirmation hearings and not allowed Jackson.

That double standard is the display of anger and emotion that Brett Kavanaugh could indulge during his 2018 confirmation and that these senators deployed against Jackson. Any woman — white, Black, Latina — who behaved like Kavanaugh would have been dismissed as “hysterical” or “emotional.”

Jackson would have been seen as an “angry Black woman,” and among the lessons Black parents teach their children is the spoken and unspoken caution about showing anger.

“The angry Black man” and “angry Black woman” are centuries-old stereotypes rooted in fear and used to dismiss, condescend and demean. But the problem has never been with those deemed “angry” but with those uncomfortable with Black people if they weren’t always smiling, courteous and complying.

So, Jackson, poised and more qualified than anyone on the Senate Judiciary Committee, or any sitting justice, to serve on the Supreme Court, listened as Hawley painted her as soft on child sexual abuse even though the conservative National Review defended her and called this a “smear.”

She listened as a shrill and emotional Graham asked her about hearings and organizations with which she had no association.

She listened as Cotton said he didn’t believe her.

And she listened as Cruz bellowed about critical race theory, which has nothing to do with her work, but, hey, she’s Black.

There were times when Jackson looked as if she’d had enough and was ready to let loose, but she’d pause, collect herself and respond with another serving of grace.

And let the record show that it wasn’t the smallness of Cruz, Graham, Cotton or Hawley who brought Jackson to tears. It was the largeness of Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who, among other things, told her, “You have earned this spot. You are worthy. You are a great American.”

It’s Jackie Robinson we remember, not Ben Chapman.

Ketanji Brown Jackson is history. Her loud, emotional detractors are footnotes.

cary.clack@express-news.net

[AZGrizFan]

Strong and historical piece right here.

Sunday's column

Clack: Like those before her, Jackson serves up grace to make history

San Antonio Express-News
March 25, 2022

On April 22, 1947, one week after Jackie Robinson became the first Black player in modern major league baseball, the Brooklyn Dodgers began hosting the Philadelphia Phillies for a three-game series. Throughout that first game, the Phillies, led by manager Ben Chapman, assaulted Robinson with racist bile.

Before signing Robinson, Dodgers owner Branch Rickey told Robinson he wanted him, during his rookie year, to have the courage to not fight back against the verbal and physical abuse he’d receive. Doing so would jeopardize this “noble experiment” to integrate baseball.

So Robinson listened to Chapman’s taunts and remained silent. But his teammate, Alabama-born Eddie Stanky, did not, yelling at Chapman and the Phillies, “Why don’t you guys go to work on somebody who can fight back? There isn’t one of you has the guts of a louse.”

Robinson’s temperament was to fight back, and he was more than capable of doing so — and would from 1948 on. But for one year, he had to take the abuse so he would not live down to a stereotype and deny opportunities to other players of color.

The Jackie Robinsons in life, trailblazers who look different from those who came before them, those who are the first of their ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual preference to accomplish something, are asked to be more humane than those who preceded them when treated poorly. They’re asked to serve portions of grace in exchange for slices of opportunity. When their talent is undeniable, their temperament is explored as reason to disqualify them.

Stanky’s words — “Why don’t you guys go to work on somebody who can fight back?” — came to mind while watching the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who, if confirmed, would be the first Black woman on the court. They echoed while listening to the interruptions, and the bellowing soliloquies, misrepresentations and interrogations from Sens. Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley.

They weren’t there for a vigorous and respectful intellectual exchange with Jackson or to examine legitimate criticisms of her record, but to perform for those who enjoy the stylings of these Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

No, none of these senators did or said anything resembling Chapman’s treatment of Robinson. But in the manner and tone with which they addressed Jackson, they exploited and enjoyed a double standard not allowed Amy Coney Barrett during her 2020 confirmation hearings and not allowed Jackson.

That double standard is the display of anger and emotion that Brett Kavanaugh could indulge during his 2018 confirmation and that these senators deployed against Jackson. Any woman — white, Black, Latina — who behaved like Kavanaugh would have been dismissed as “hysterical” or “emotional.”

Jackson would have been seen as an “angry Black woman,” and among the lessons Black parents teach their children is the spoken and unspoken caution about showing anger.

“The angry Black man” and “angry Black woman” are centuries-old stereotypes rooted in fear and used to dismiss, condescend and demean. But the problem has never been with those deemed “angry” but with those uncomfortable with Black people if they weren’t always smiling, courteous and complying.

So, Jackson, poised and more qualified than anyone on the Senate Judiciary Committee, or any sitting justice, to serve on the Supreme Court, listened as Hawley painted her as soft on child sexual abuse even though the conservative National Review defended her and called this a “smear.”

She listened as a shrill and emotional Graham asked her about hearings and organizations with which she had no association.

She listened as Cotton said he didn’t believe her.

And she listened as Cruz bellowed about critical race theory, which has nothing to do with her work, but, hey, she’s Black.

There were times when Jackson looked as if she’d had enough and was ready to let loose, but she’d pause, collect herself and respond with another serving of grace.

And let the record show that it wasn’t the smallness of Cruz, Graham, Cotton or Hawley who brought Jackson to tears. It was the largeness of Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., who, among other things, told her, “You have earned this spot. You are worthy. You are a great American.”

It’s Jackie Robinson we remember, not Ben Chapman.

Ketanji Brown Jackson is history. Her loud, emotional detractors are footnotes.

cary.clack@express-news.net

Oh boo fucking hoo. Had the Dems treated the Republican nominees with even the slightest modicum of respect you might have a point with this hit piece, but fuck them, and fuck her too. Just because she’s black and has a vagina (presumably, and most certainly not guaranteed, given she couldn’t even define the word “woman”) doens’t make her immune from the mudslinging that our government has perfected. FFS they’re not doing it to her BECAUSE she’s a woman (again, assumption here), they’re doing it to her because THAT’S WHAT THEY DO.

Unless this person wrote a similarly concerned piece when Kavanaugh and his family were drug through the mud for weeks, I have ZERO sympathy and the author has zero credibility. Seeing racism in something (nay…EVERYTHING) simply because the person is a minority is 95% of what’s wrong with this country right now.

And let’s be honest….she wants to go soft on CHILD PREDATORS. From the Epstein elites’ standpoint, she’s the PERFECT judge for the SC.

[Ivytalk]

Strong and historical piece right here.

Oh boo fucking hoo. Had the Dems treated the Republican nominees with even the slightest modicum of respect you might have a point with this hit piece, but fuck them, and fuck her too. Just because she’s black and has a vagina (presumably, and most certainly not guaranteed, given she couldn’t even define the word “woman”) doens’t make her immune from the mudslinging that our government has perfected. FFS they’re not doing it to her BECAUSE she’s a woman (again, assumption here), they’re doing it to her because THAT’S WHAT THEY DO.

Unless this person wrote a similarly concerned piece when Kavanaugh and his family were drug through the mud for weeks, I have ZERO sympathy and the author has zero credibility. Seeing racism in something (nay…EVERYTHING) simply because the person is a minority is 95% of what’s wrong with this country right now.

And let’s be honest….she wants to go soft on CHILD PREDATORS. From the Epstein elites’ standpoint, she’s the PERFECT judge for the SC.

Yep. Double standard again. Cory Booker is as big a grandstander as any of the Republican Senators that “Clack” takes a shot at. Right on, Sistah.

[kalm]

Oh boo fucking hoo. Had the Dems treated the Republican nominees with even the slightest modicum of respect you might have a point with this hit piece, but fuck them, and fuck her too. Just because she’s black and has a vagina (presumably, and most certainly not guaranteed, given she couldn’t even define the word “woman”) doens’t make her immune from the mudslinging that our government has perfected. FFS they’re not doing it to her BECAUSE she’s a woman (again, assumption here), they’re doing it to her because THAT’S WHAT THEY DO.

Unless this person wrote a similarly concerned piece when Kavanaugh and his family were drug through the mud for weeks, I have ZERO sympathy and the author has zero credibility. Seeing racism in something (nay…EVERYTHING) simply because the person is a minority is 95% of what’s wrong with this country right now.

And let’s be honest….she wants to go soft on CHILD PREDATORS. From the Epstein elites’ standpoint, she’s the PERFECT judge for the SC.

Yep. Double standard again. Cory Booker is as big a grandstander as any of the Republican Senators that “Clack” takes a shot at. Right on, Sistah.

That double standard works both ways as the author points out. Still, he’s right regarding Jackson. Even if Kavanaugh was also mistreated.

FTR, I have no love for Booker. He’s similar to Graham in his hackishness.

[89Hen]

It had nothing really to do with Jackson, but Graham crushed it when he asked about her religious beliefs. It highlighted why I can't stand liberals these days. I'm no fan of diehards of either party, but run of the mill libs are just as reprehensible.

What exactly did it highlight of reprehensible liberal religious thought for you?

Honestly curious.

Liberals hate religious folk, even though half of Catholics are liberals. They were ALL OVER Barrett for her Catholic faith. I suggest you look up Graham's questioning of Jackson and then watch the Libs questioning Barrett.

[89Hen]

You should start the 89Hen Party, because you’re the only person who could meet your high standards.

Jesus might have had a shot but he was probably too liberal.

I'm on an island for sure. Libs have pushed me to BDK extremes. BTW, gospel today was prodigal son. Something Libs love to profess but don't believe.

[89Hen]

Had the Dems treated the Republican nominees with even the slightest modicum of respect you might have a point with this hit piece, but fuck them, and fuck her too. Just because she’s black and has a vagina (presumably, and most certainly not guaranteed, given she couldn’t even define the word “woman”) doens’t make her immune from the mudslinging that our government has perfected.

+1000

[kalm]

What exactly did it highlight of reprehensible liberal religious thought for you?

Honestly curious.

Liberals hate religious folk, even though half of Catholics are liberals. They were ALL OVER Barrett for her Catholic faith. I suggest you look up Graham's questioning of Jackson and then watch the Libs questioning Barrett.

Liberals are religious folk too.

I’m skeptical of Barrett not for being a Catholic or a Christian but her association with an organization that literally referred to females as “handmaids”.

That indicates a certain degree of delusion I’m not comfortable with being a part of our power structure. I take your word that Barret was treated unfairly but that doesn’t excuse how Jackson is being treated.

[UNI88]

Liberals hate religious folk, even though half of Catholics are liberals. They were ALL OVER Barrett for her Catholic faith. I suggest you look up Graham's questioning of Jackson and then watch the Libs questioning Barrett.

Liberals are religious folk too.

I’m skeptical of Barrett not for being a Catholic or a Christian but her association with an organization that literally referred to females as “handmaids”.

That indicates a certain degree of delusion I’m not comfortable with being a part of our power structure. I take your word that Barret was treated unfairly but that doesn’t excuse how Jackson is being treated.

Yes liberals are religious folk too but big government is their religion.

Good that you're uncomfortable with delusion being a part of our power structure. Maybe now you'll understand why I'm uncomfortable with Bernie, AOChe, and other socialists and their delusion that it will work this time.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[AZGrizFan]

Yep. Double standard again. Cory Booker is as big a grandstander as any of the Republican Senators that “Clack” takes a shot at. Right on, Sistah.

That double standard works both ways as the author points out. Still, he’s right regarding Jackson. Even if Kavanaugh was also mistreated.

FTR, I have no love for Booker. He’s similar to Graham in his hackishness.

Really? did he write a similar piece on Coney-Barrett? Because they (the Dems) eviscerated HER too….but because Jackson is black that makes this racism?

[AZGrizFan]

Liberals hate religious folk, even though half of Catholics are liberals. They were ALL OVER Barrett for her Catholic faith. I suggest you look up Graham's questioning of Jackson and then watch the Libs questioning Barrett.

Liberals are religious folk too.

I’m skeptical of Barrett not for being a Catholic or a Christian but her association with an organization that literally referred to females as “handmaids”.

That indicates a certain degree of delusion I’m not comfortable with being a part of our power structure. I take your word that Barret was treated unfairly but that doesn’t excuse how Jackson is being treated.

And Jackson’s delusion that people who collect child pornography may not be sexual predators makes ME not comfortable with her being part of our power structure.

[kalm]

Liberals are religious folk too.

I’m skeptical of Barrett not for being a Catholic or a Christian but her association with an organization that literally referred to females as “handmaids”.

That indicates a certain degree of delusion I’m not comfortable with being a part of our power structure. I take your word that Barret was treated unfairly but that doesn’t excuse how Jackson is being treated.

And Jackson’s delusion that people who collect child pornography may not be sexual predators makes ME not comfortable with her being part of our power structure.

Get better news sources.

[kalm]

That double standard works both ways as the author points out. Still, he’s right regarding Jackson. Even if Kavanaugh was also mistreated.

FTR, I have no love for Booker. He’s similar to Graham in his hackishness.

Really? did he write a similar piece on Coney-Barrett? Because they (the Dems) eviscerated HER too….but because Jackson is black that makes this racism?

I’m not even sure what this means.

[AZGrizFan]

Really? did he write a similar piece on Coney-Barrett? Because they (the Dems) eviscerated HER too….but because Jackson is black that makes this racism?

I’m not even sure what this means.

Of course, because you supported what they did to Barrett and Kavanaugh.

[AZGrizFan]

And Jackson’s delusion that people who collect child pornography may not be sexual predators makes ME not comfortable with her being part of our power structure.

Get better news sources.

My sources are fine. Thanks for the concern.

[SDHornet]

Get better news sources.

My sources are fine. Thanks for the concern.

The "light on pedo sentencing" has been well documented and proven with her track record. klammy is just being obtuse on this matter.

[kalm]

My sources are fine. Thanks for the concern.

The "light on pedo sentencing" has been well documented and proven with her track record. klammy is just being obtuse on this matter.

Get better news sources.

[Ibanez]

My sources are fine. Thanks for the concern.

The "light on pedo sentencing" has been well documented and proven with her track record. klammy is just being obtuse on this matter.

I would've like to hear someone ask about how she can give a light sentence in some cases but 20+ years in others. The GOP has done a good job at making it appear that every child porn defendant that came before Jackson got off with a slap on the wrist.

[Winterborn]

Jesus might have had a shot but he was probably too liberal.

I'm on an island for sure. Libs have pushed me to BDK extremes. BTW, gospel today was prodigal son. Something Libs love to profess but don't believe.

I am one island over. Can't stand politicians and the people that like to kiss their shoes just for the chance to catch some of the crumbs that fall off their plate.

BTW: My island has a bunch of coconuts. Want to trade for some banana's if you have any?

[Winterborn]

And Jackson’s delusion that people who collect child pornography may not be sexual predators makes ME not comfortable with her being part of our power structure.

Get better news sources.

Her piece in a prestigious law journal was pretty clear on the reason she is "soft" on certain crimes.

Nobody is perfect, but the question needed to be asked and that she had an opportunity to explain herself.

[SDHornet]

Get better news sources.

Her piece in a prestigious law journal was pretty clear on the reason she is "soft" on certain crimes.

Nobody is perfect, but the question needed to be asked and that she had an opportunity to explain herself.

The "get better sources" is just an excuse to ignore the pro-pedo sentencing she has handed out. Really weak and shows it can't be refuted.