@mld-woody said:

No, that's not appeal to authority. That's a recognition of all of the work and intelligence required to get to that point. 

Hard work =/= intelligence

Her prior roles are “not conducive to the cerebral approach of judging that happens on the SC”.

Thanks a lot Biden, you and the demonrats came through once again.

If Jackson seems out of her element, there's a reason. There have been many career paths followed by justices who have been appointed to the Supreme Court. But it is quite uncommon for someone to be appointed to the Supreme Court without meaningful experience at the level of an appellate court, as is the case with Jackson.
Her first judicial appointment was to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in 2014, where she served as a district judge for seven years. In June of 2021, following President Biden's nomination, Jackson was confirmed to replace Merrick Garland on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

But only eight months later, Biden named her to replace the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer on the Supreme Court. In her eight months on the Court of Appeals, Justice Jackson authored only two opinions. 

The practical reality was that Biden nominated a district court judge to a seat on the Supreme Court consisting of nine justices who decide cases by majority vote. 

District court is where federal cases begin – where "cases" and "controversies" are first decided. The district judges are the "referees" between the litigants, and sometimes they serve as the decision-makers on the outcome of the cases. There is a significant amount of trial work where the district judge presides alone over the proceedings. Many quick decisions and judgments are made during a trial, often with little time for research or considered analysis.   

Even where time and research are available, the district judge is still working "solo" with the assistance of one or more law clerks. The final decision on such motions belongs to the judge alone. 

District judges largely operate independent of their peers in the same courthouse. Their decisions are not binding on each other. They preside over their own dockets and make decisions in the cases assigned to them as they see fit.

Under this system, legal mistakes and errors are inevitable. The only requirement for proceedings at the district court level – including trials – is that they be fair. It is not required that they be "error-free." Only when errors result in unfairness that prejudices one side or the other is the outcome of the case called into doubt.       

Appellate courts sit in review of the outcomes in trial courts. They focus on the errors in the case presented. While broader legal questions are sometimes an issue on appellate review, the focus is primarily on the presence or absence of errors in the case in the district court, and whether any identified errors justify altering the outcome in that court. 
 

The federal district judge often plays the role of interrogator of the attorneys representing each side. Anyone who has been a trial attorney for any substantial period of time in federal district courts understands this. The questioning by that district judge can be hostile, aggressive, condescending, dismissive, humiliating, etc.  But that questioning is focused on the facts and specific legal issues presented in that case, and not the broader implications of how the outcome of that case might impact other cases. Part of the reason is because that district judge’s decisions are not binding on other district judges.

Jackson just completed her third term on the court. This chart, which is from the 2024-2025 term, is highly revealing in terms of one of the issues that stands between her and her colleagues – her conduct as a justice is still influenced by her eight years as a district judge, i.e., she spends much more time examining the attorneys before the court than do her colleagues.

@mld-woody said:

No, that's not appeal to authority. That's a recognition of all of the work and intelligence required to get to that point. 

You really are a moron.

@vaportrail said:

The letters after my name don't prove that I'm intelligent. You're appealing to authority - X can't be dumb because they obtained a degree from Y

No, that's not appeal to authority. That's a recognition of all of the work and intelligence required to get to that point. 

@mld-woody said:

I would never call any SCOTUS member dumb. Or Harvard Law grad. Come on man.

There's enough anti academic anti University slop on this board. Not that you're doing that exactly 

The letters after my name don't prove that I'm intelligent. You're appealing to authority - X can't be dumb because they obtained a degree from Y

@mld-woody said:

***BIRDBITCHFART*** 

She is illiterate. Hadn't read or knew about basic simple legal points congress folks asked her about. She wasn't acquainted with those subjects. 

One one point - 

"Marked by inferiority to an expected standard of familiarity with language and literature."

So, she was far inferior in her reading and understanding of legal language they asked her about. She was NOT familiar with legal points they asked about, not familiar with the legal language they asked about. She had no clue.

You're a moron.

@calfoxwc said:

Your false accusations are nonsense and make you look like a moron.

btw, you're a moron.

Direct quotes are now false accusations?

Haha, you're spiraling 

@mld-woody said:

***FART***PECK***WHINE****SISSYBITCH***FART***PECK***WHINE****SISSYBITCH***FART***PECK***WHINE****SISSYBITCH***FART***PECK***WHINE****SISSYBITCH***FART***PECK***WHINE****SISSYBITCH***FART***PECK***WHINE****SISSYBITCH

Your false accusations are nonsense and make you look like a moron.

btw, you're a moron.

https://x.com/EricLDaugh/status/1942675046482297299?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1942675046482297299%7Ctwgr%5E4d3194beee22be9b4e6eba4831fd986c778c309d%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/07/embarrassing-even-liberal-justice-sotomayor-has-remind-ketanji/

@calfoxwc said:

I didn't say jackson was not intelligent, she is ignorant. Ignorant of the role of Supreme Court Justices, ignorant of how to handle herself - she has alienated and criticized the rest of the Court, and she is just nasty and wrong.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2025/07/08/supreme-court-hands-trump-wh-a-major-win-and-slaps-down-justice-jackson-again-n2660076

Supreme Court Hands Trump White House a Major Win, and Slaps Down Justice Jackson Again

"Nasty".... Ha... Right. Surprised you haven't used your go to yet to call her a slut. 

"I said ignorant, not that she's wasn't intelligent" you also called her illiterate 

@calfoxwc said:

My first job out of college, I was writing software to calculate mortgages for 127 banks and savings and loans places. Never made a mistake, first time they didn't have an older well experienced programmer to do it. And it was in assembler - a step up from machine language. I worked next to some guy who graduated from a 4 yr program. He programmed in a higher level language, and couldn't cut the mustard. I tried to help him, but he was lost. And it was a simple report generator. He told me one day, a month before he got let go - that his brother had all the tests from their fraternity and he had access to all of them. I guess that is why I figured jackson might have done that. 

Her arguments are asinine, and in her interview with congress, she couldn't answer very simple references to legal subjects.

   No one here is anti-acedemic. The woodpecker slurs to try to look superior to everyone who isn't gay, trans, or leftie. Never works.

- oh boy, another "cal saved the day and everyone clapped" story that totally happened

- THAT is why you think that? Hahaha. Alright cal. A more liberal, woman of color is in power and she's saying things you don't like... So clearly she cheated in college. Riiiiiight

- many MAGA posters on this board are incredibly anti academic and anti University. You have been for years and years. Wild y'all are trying to fight it now

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2025/07/08/supreme-court-hands-trump-wh-a-major-win-and-slaps-down-justice-jackson-again-n2660076

Supreme Court Hands Trump White House a Major Win, and Slaps Down Justice Jackson Again

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2025/07/08/ketanji-brown-jackson-says-something-so-stupid-that-her-own-left-wing-colleague-had-to-correct-her-n2191394

For years, the general consensus on the right has been that Sonia Sotomayor is the most vapid Justice on the Supreme Court, and certainly, there's been plenty of evidence to that effect. Who could forget that time she compared mutilating children under the guise of "gender-affirming care" to taking an aspirin? 

But Ketanji Brown Jackson exists, and that means Sotomayor was never long for her throne. Appointed by former President Joe Biden, Jackson infamously claimed she couldn't define what a woman is because she's "not a biologist" during her confirmation hearing, and it's been all downhill from there. More recently, she completely misrepresented the basic facts in a case involving whether parents can opt out of LGBT lessons in school. 

Her masterpiece came at the end of June, though. In a dissent involving whether district court judges could issue sweeping nationwide injunctions, Jackson used the phrase "wait for it" like a summer intern before arguing that assessing the law was a "mind-numbing technical query," as if that's not the Supreme Court's purpose. In an unprecedented move, Justice Amy Coney Barrett unleashed on her in response.

That seemed about as bad as it could get, but Jackson is nothing if not persistent in her imbecility. Which brings me to what happened on Tuesday. In a move that I would have never predicted in a million years, aforementioned far-left Justice Sonia Sotomayor took Jackson to task for writing a dissent addressing a question that wasn't even before the court. "

@jax said:

I don't think anyone here is anti academic, stop making shit up all the time.

My first job out of college, I was writing software to calculate mortgages for 127 banks and savings and loans places. Never made a mistake, first time they didn't have an older well experienced programmer to do it. And it was in assembler - a step up from machine language. I worked next to some guy who graduated from a 4 yr program. He programmed in a higher level language, and couldn't cut the mustard. I tried to help him, but he was lost. And it was a simple report generator. He told me one day, a month before he got let go - that his brother had all the tests from their fraternity and he had access to all of them. I guess that is why I figured jackson might have done that. 

Her arguments are asinine, and in her interview with congress, she couldn't answer very simple references to legal subjects.

   No one here is anti-acedemic. The woodpecker slurs to try to look superior to everyone who isn't gay, trans, or leftie. Never works.

@mld-woody said:

There's enough anti academic anti University slop on this board.

I don't think anyone here is anti academic, stop making shit up all the time.

@vaportrail said:

I'd encourage you to listen to some of her oral arguments before blindly jumping to her defense. I don't like Kagan, Sotomayor, or Ginsburg's opinions, but I would never call them dumb. 

I would never call any SCOTUS member dumb. Or Harvard Law grad. Come on man.

There's enough anti academic anti University slop on this board. Not that you're doing that exactly 

@mld-woody said:

"dumbest person to have ever passed the bar" ...

I'd encourage you to listen to some of her oral arguments before blindly jumping to her defense. I don't like Kagan, Sotomayor, or Ginsburg's opinions, but I would never call them dumb. 

@calfoxwc said:

stupid woodpecker.

"she graduated from Harvard law"

I think she had other students take her tests for her.

She is a moron, birdbrains of a feather stick together.

PJ Media

https://pjmedia.com › matt-margolis › 2024 › 12 › 04 › justice-ketanji-jackson-makes-a-fool-of-herself-during-oral-arguments-n4934831

And what evidence do you have for that claim?

@vaportrail said:

So did Sashi Brown. Doesn't mean he's good at his job.

The claim wasn't "good at her job" it was about her being "illiterate", "ignorant", "dumbest person to have ever passed the bar" ...

@mld-woody said:

... She graduated Harvard Law...

So did Sashi Brown. Doesn't mean he's good at his job.

"she graduated from Harvard law"

I think she had other students take her tests for her.

She is a moron, birdbrains of a feather stick together.

PJ Media

https://pjmedia.com › matt-margolis › 2024 › 12 › 04 › justice-ketanji-jackson-makes-a-fool-of-herself-during-oral-arguments-n4934831

@calfoxwc said:

you really are ignorant. There is a another Justice, and he is black. He is also brilliant in his decisions per our Constitution.

   Jackson couldn't answer basic questions on the Constitution. She can't explain what a woman is. Her bitching about all the rest of the Court, is worse than stupid.

Sure, "criticism of obaMao (and Jackson) is racist" ???

but criticism of Pres Trump isn't. Don't you feel that Justice Thomas is brilliant?

and, if you don't feel that Justice jackson is ignorant, explain why.

... She graduated Harvard Law...

(And you completely didn't read or comprehend anything I said earlier but I'm not surprised)

@mld-woody said:

***FART***

you really are ignorant. There is a another Justice, and he is black. He is also brilliant in his decisions per our Constitution.

   Jackson couldn't answer basic questions on the Constitution. She can't explain what a woman is. Her bitching about all the rest of the Court, is worse than stupid.

Sure, "criticism of obaMao (and Jackson) is racist" ???

but criticism of Pres Trump isn't. Don't you feel that Justice Thomas is brilliant?

and, if you don't feel that Justice jackson is ignorant, explain why.

@vaportrail said:

Yes. Have you read any of her arguments? What is your opinion of them? My read is that she uses verbosity to cover up her lack of understanding (kind of like some people here). 

No, I haven't. And yeah, overly academic / verbose writing is a fucking bore. 

I'm saying it's ridiculous to call anyone on SCOTUS dumb, illiterate, etc. 

But cal, and others, have a thing on here with left/liberal/progressive women in power (especially when they check other boxes). Honestly I think he's just intimidated