Meme - Charlie Kirk: "Kentanji Brown Jackson is a diversity hire. She is only there because she's a black woman."
Alex Cole: "Ketanji graduated magna cum laude from Harvard. You dropped out of community college to cosplay as a fascist. "Diversity hire" is what racists say when a Black woman earns something they never could."
The Hodgetwins: "She was literally picked because she's a black woman. Joe Biden said that's why he picked her"
John Reeves on X - "Here's what's really amazing about Justice Barrett's merciless mockery of Justice Jackson's dissent--not only did Justice Barrett use blunt language in pointing out how bad Justice Jackson's arguments are, but *five additional Justices, including the Chief Justice,* signed on to that criticism."
Clearly, this just proves that conservatives are racist and sexist
Meme - Clay Travis: "Amy Coney Barrett's full evisceration of Ketanji Brown Jackson is below. She's basically asking how KBJ passed the bar."
"We will not dwell on JUSTICE JACKSON’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: JUSTICE JACKSON decries an imperial Executive while em- bracing an imperial Judiciary. No one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law. But the Judiciary does not have unbridled author- ity to enforce this obligation—in fact, sometimes the law prohibits the Judiciary from doing so. See, e.g., Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137 (1803) (concluding that James Mad- ison had violated the law but holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus ordering him to follow it). But see post, at 15 (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (“If courts do not have the authority to require the Executive to adhere to law universally, . . . compliance with law some- times becomes a matter of Executive prerogative”). Observ- ing the limits on judicial authority—including, as relevant here, the boundaries of the Judiciary Act of 1789—is re- quired by a judge’s oath to follow the law. JUSTICE JACKSON skips over that part. Because analyz- ing the governing statute involves boring “legalese”"
Ed: Also: "Think about what this position means. If a judge in the District ofAlaska holds that a criminal statute is unconstitutional, can the UnitedStates prosecute a defendant under that statute in the District of Mary-land? Perhaps JUSTICE JACKSON would instinctively say yes; it is hard toimagine anyone saying no. But why, on JUSTICE JACKSON’s logic, does itnot violate the rule of law for the Executive to initiate a prosecution else-where? See post, at 2 (dissenting opinion). Among its many problems,JUSTICE JACKSON’s view is at odds with our system of divided judicial au-thority. See, e.g., this Court’s Rule 10(a) (identifying conflict in the deci-sions of the courts of appeals as grounds for granting certiorari). It isalso in considerable tension with the reality that district court opinionslack precedential force even vis-à-vis other judges in the same judicialdistrict. See Camreta v. Greene, 563 U. S. 692, 709, n. 7 (2011)."
Kostas Moros on X - "Holy shit, this is about as brutal as I've ever seen SCOTUS be on one of their own. Translated: "you are so stupid that you aren't even worth responding to.""
C3 on X - "BREAKING NEWS: Judge that doesn’t know what a woman is doesn’t know what an American Citizen is either."
Eric Daugherty on X - "🚨 OMG Justice Amy Coney Barrett basically implied Ketanji Jackson is too dumb or unwilling to read "legalese" - literally her JOB description 😭😭 She is the most unqualified justice in Supreme Court history. DEI."
Joel Berry on X - "Ketanji Brown Jackson is a great example of how DEI feeds racial prejudice. When you elevate morons just because of their skin color, people get the mistaken idea that all people of that skin color are morons. It's a terrible thing to do to people."
David Prince on X - "Ketanji Brown Jackson typed “full stop” and “wait for it” in actual legal Supreme Court documents today. Uhh this is a problem. Low IQ ppl should just go with ChatGPT TBH"
The Raven's Call on X - "Just read the Scotus decision striking down universal injunctions. I have concerns that birthright citizenship may be impossible to interpret away. Also, Ketanji Brown Jackson's writing is awful, replete w/ innformal filler such as "full stop" + "what I mean." Also redundant."
Meme - Geiger Capital @Geiger_Capital: "8-1 decision. Ketanji Brown Jackson once again gets absolutely embarrassed... This time Sotomayor (a fellow liberal) explains to her that Trump's specific plans are not before the Court and that her decision is supposed to be based on the legality, not her personal approval."
"JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, concurring in the grant of stay. I agree with JUSTICE JACKSON that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates. See post, at 13. Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force "consistent with applicable law," App. to Application for Stay and the re- sulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much. The plans themselves are not before this Court, at this stage, and we thus have no occasion to consider whether they can and will be carried out consistent with the constraints of law. I join the Court's stay because it leaves the District Court free to consider those questions in the first instance."
The Spectator Index @spectatorindex: "BREAKING: US Supreme Court lifts order that had blocked Trump's mass federal layoffs"
segmentum: "Very embarrassing. And the liberals want to pack SCOTUS with a majority of judges just like Jackson."
Nathan A. M. on X - "If you can lie to yourself so hard, that you are going to pretend, under oath, that you need to be a biologist to determine whether a person is a man or a woman, you can lie to yourself about anything. The very last person you should have on the Supreme Court."
Meme - "The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity. JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a "mind-numbingly technical query," post, at 3 (dissenting opinion), she offers a vision of"
Jack Poso 🇺🇸 @JackPosobiec: "The Supreme Court has published an opinion that includes a section explaining that Ketanji Brown Jackson can't seem to understand the legal arguments being made in the case"
"Diversity hire can't read? What else is new?"
Charlie Kirk on X - "An actual quote from a SCOTUS expert who understands the current court well: “This is an unbelievable bloodbath for KBJ.” “It’s really a huge problem for the court to have 1 of 9 members essentially intellectually disabled from even adequately faking the ability to perform the job." Joe Biden explicitly picked KBJ for reasons of DEI rather than merit. Now, he has seriously injured the highest court in the land, but his own cause most of all. What an embarrassment."
Sean N.🔫 on X - "That 6 justices signed onto an opinion calling her out by name and no justice signed onto her dissent is very telling. I'll be interested to see if any of the other justices tried to dissuade her from issuing the dissent."
Meme - "Amy Coney Barrett is fed up with Ketanji Brown Jackson
"Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition."
"As best we can tell, though, her argument is more extreme still, because its logic does not depend on the entry of a universal injunction."
"We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument which is at odds [with] the Constitution itself.""
Meme - The Rabbit Hole: "KBJ speaks more then all of the male Supreme Court justices combined"
"Words Spoken by New Supreme Court Justices For Their First 8 Arguments"
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is an insult to the US Supreme Court - "In January 2022, one year after Joe Biden assumed the White House, Justice Stephen Breyer of the US Supreme Court announced his impending retirement. Biden, who had selected the intellectually challenged Kamala Harris as his running mate two years prior, in large part on diversity grounds, sprang into action to fulfil a campaign promise to black political kingmaker Rep Jim Clyburn (D-SC) – that he would select a black woman for his first Supreme Court pick. And so the Biden White House foisted upon us Ketanji Brown Jackson – a hitherto obscure jurist, nominated because of her sex and race, but who ironically refused to provide a definition of the word “woman” when asked about it at her US Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing. Curious, that! Alas, it has only been downhill from that rockiest of rocky starts. I pondered, at the time of Jackson’s nomination, how a justice who knows she was selected on the basis of identity politics could be expected to fairly adjudicate cases that involve issues of race and sex? My concern proved prescient. Barely a year after her nomination, Justice Clarence Thomas – the Court’s longest-serving member, who also happens to be black – excoriated Jackson’s “myopia” in his concurring opinion in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v Harvard, which ended the systemic racism of “affirmative action” in university admissions: “Justice Jackson’s race-infused world view falls flat at each step. Individuals are the sum of their unique experiences, challenges, and accomplishments. What matters is not the barriers they face, but how they choose to confront them. And their race is not to blame for everything – good or bad – that happens in their lives. A contrary, myopic world view based on individuals’ skin colour to the total exclusion of their personal choices is nothing short of racial determinism.” As part of her SFFA dissent, notably, Jackson also made a “mathematically absurd” claim about black infant mortality. Any decent law clerk – or any decent judge – would have caught on before publication. By missing the obvious, Jackson demonstrated precisely the sort of brazen nitwittery that should have cautioned political leaders away from allowing the search for one of the nine most important lawyers to be determined by identity politics. Yet as satisfying as Thomas’s defenestration of Jackson in his SFFA concurrence was, Friday’s fusillade from Justice Amy Coney Barrett in her majority opinion in Trump v CASA, a case addressing the contentious debate over the legitimacy of so-called nationwide injunctions, was if anything even more fulfilling. Barrett took a mighty, acerbic sledgehammer to Jackson’s paean to unvarnished judicial supremacy. “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,” Barrett wrote. “We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.” What’s more, Jackson “chooses a starting line of attack that is tethered neither to [historical] sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever”. And “among its many problems, Justice Jackson’s view is at odds with our system of divided judicial authority”. Perhaps most bitingly, Barrett mocked Jackson’s glossing over the all-important inquiry as to the historical “limits on judicial authority” as mere “legalese” (Jackson’s own ignominious word choice). In a word: brutal. Notably, all six of the Court’s Republican-nominated justices, including the ever-mercurial chief justice, John Roberts, signed onto Barrett’s opinion in full. Call it a pile-on. One cannot help but get the sense that Barrett, the normally mild-mannered former law professor and mother of seven, really just wanted to say: “Justice Jackson is unfit to serve on this Court.” And maybe she should have done so. Because it happens to be true. The fact that Ketanji Brown Jackson was selected as a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States on the basis of her race and sex is offensive enough. But the fact she now routinely produces such intellectually indefensible balderdash that she is roundly mocked by her more senior colleagues, takes the level of offence to a different level. Simply put, serious countries do not elevate arguably unqualified dimwits to public positions of extraordinary prominence. The continued humiliation of Ketanji Brown Jackson at the nation’s highest court – at the behest of her colleagues – is a lagging social indication. It is a warning that something has gone deeply wrong in how the world’s pre-eminent superpower nominates the most prestigious constitutional officers and decides the most pressing constitutional issues... Frankly, no one should be more offended at this appalling DEI idiocy than Jackson’s fellow black women. Because Jackson was nominated explicitly due to the fact she is a black woman. Ah yes – but we can’t possibly define what a woman is, can we? And therein lies the rub."
Thread by @CynicalPublius on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "I think we can all agree that SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a subtard DEI hire. But it's worse than that. At SCOTUS, the heavy lifting gets done by each justice's law clerks, who are customarily the best and brightest young lawyers that America has to offer. Brilliant and highly credentialed, these clerks have a huge influence on SCOTUS operations and decisions. But few brilliant and highly credentialed young attorneys will end up working for a a subtard DEI hire, which means the justice who is a subtard DEI hire will end up being assisted by a cabal of junior subtard DEI hires, rendering 1/9th of the supreme judicial power of the United States of America a confederacy of dunces. This is not good.
And before some imbecile leftist jumps in and calls me "racist," Clarence Thomas is the most brilliant mind on the Court and is one of the most intelligent and capable humans the USA has ever produced.
For those of you squealing "No no no SCOTUS clerks and Ivy League lawyers are all very smart," please note that KJB went to Harvard Law School and was herself a SCOTUS clerk.
Thank you for your attention to this matter."
Victor Shi on X - "Only in America would the Supreme Court limit the power of their own branch of government."
James Woods on X - "The entire constitution is framed around defining limitations of government. It was the basis of the American Revolution. Read a history book."
The ReidOut on X - "The number of Black American players in Major League Baseball has plummeted to just 6%, offering a warning about what can happen when institutions de-emphasize diversity. More on our #ReidOutBlog:"
i/o on X - "The number of white male American sprinters competing in the Olympics 100 meters event has been zero for 56 years, offering a warning about what can happen if you just let people compete fairly on a level playing field."
The article is basically an admission that diversity is about shoving in unqualified black people everywhere
Thread by @EPoe187 on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "A major problem with the "It's unseemly to focus on the causes of racial disparities" argument is that the media WILL focus on racial disparities. Endlessly. And we know they have an answer. Racism. You can't have it both ways. If focusing on racial disparities is unseemly, then the proposed cause should be irrelevant. And if it's reasonable to point to racism, then it's also reasonable to point to groups differences in relevant traits. Ultimately people like Yglesias who want to preserve the taboo about race differences end up promoting a double standard. If the cause is racism, we can discuss it. If not, we should be quiet. I have no idea if Hollywood is racist, though I doubt it. But if somebody proposes that Hollywood is racist, then we should be allowed to explore the topic while considering all potential hypotheses, including differences in IQ and self-control et cetera."
i/o on X - "The handling of race in FRONT of the cameras is so out of whack with reality precisely because Hollywood accepted racial quotas for actors. Every movie is encouraged to contain a racial "balance," and what this does is skew things to rarefied levels of statistical unreality: Interracial couples consisting of East Asian men and black women, large percentages of brilliant black scientists, and so on. It's even worse in the UK. I remember watching a British series on Netflix a few years ago which was set in a small town in England and involved the interconnecting relationships between married couples, all but one of which were interracial."
Princeton’s War on Civil Rights - "the Trump administration suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer-funded grants to Princeton as part of its investigation into racial discrimination and anti-Semitism at the New Jersey campus. Eisgruber, though, was defiant, telling the New York Times that he’s “not considering any concessions” and calling for other university presidents to follow his lead. This isn’t Eisgruber’s first bid for the spotlight. After the death of George Floyd in 2020, he declared that Princeton—where he has served as president since 2013—was guilty of “systemic racism.” In a letter to students that September, he went so far as to claim that racism was embedded in the very “structures of the university itself.” Eisgruber was right to say that he presides over a system of racial discrimination—but not in the way he imagines. The university does not discriminate against “oppressed” groups, such as blacks and Latinos, but against those seen as “oppressors.”... We have obtained more than a dozen internal documents and conducted interviews with a half-dozen employees, who confirm that the university has flagrantly violated the principles of the Civil Rights Act in the name of “social justice.” The basic structure of this system is the university’s “diversity, equity, and inclusion” bureaucracy, which has expanded dramatically under Eisgruber’s tenure. An infographic circulated by Princeton shows at least 40 academic and administrative departments with established DEI committees, with the express purpose of adjusting the campus’s racial composition. As Princeton’s first annual diversity report noted, “Every administrative and academic leader is being held accountable for demographic evolution.” According to several Princeton faculty members, “demographic evolution” is a euphemism for racial quotas and outright discrimination in academic hiring. A 2021 internal report outlining best practices for faculty recruitment described how staff were trained to “increase the diversity of the applicants at every step in the process.” The report advised search committees to discount negative references for minority candidates and to ensure that every shortlist included at least “two women and/or two underrepresented minority candidates.” The implicit message from Eisgruber and the administration: don’t hire white men unless absolutely necessary. According to one professor, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal, this meant abandoning merit-based hiring in favor of race-based preferences—the only way, given the current pipeline, to accomplish Eisgruber’s stated goal of increasing “by 50 percent the number of tenured or tenure-track faculty members from underrepresented groups over the next five years.” Though many of these policies relied on euphemism, some were openly and explicitly discriminatory. The university’s Target of Opportunity Program, which was cancelled shortly before the 2024 presidential election, made funding available for departments to hire “candidates from groups that are underrepresented on campus.” According to conversations with Princeton professors, this referred primarily to racial minorities and women. The program covered half of each hire’s salary, allowing departments to bring on new faculty without bearing the full financial burden. In effect, the administration created financial incentives to prioritize hiring racial minorities. The university’s race-conscious initiatives were not limited to faculty hiring. In 2021, Princeton released its multiyear plan for “Supplier Diversity,” which called on departments to award contracts based not on quality or cost, but on race... Dan Morenoff, executive director of the American Civil Rights Project, said Princeton’s Supplier Diversity initiative constitutes a “straightforward violation” of federal civil rights law. “Parties may not decide who to contract with and who not to contract with based on race,” Morenoff said. “It sounds very clear that this is what they were doing, and they were bragging about it.” These commitments are deeply ideological. In a 2022 speech to the Princeton Mercer Regional Chamber of Commerce, Eisgruber’s top DEI bureaucrat, Michele Minter, explained that the university rejected the principle of colorblind equality—the ideal of the Civil Rights Act—in favor of DEI-style racialism... In her speech, Minter compared today’s anti-DEI activists with the segregationists of the 1960s. But, like Eisgruber, she has it backward. The only racial segregation at Princeton today is driven by the DEI bureaucracy, which allocates programs, funding, and opportunities to certain racial groups while excluding others. Under Eisgruber and Minter’s administration, for example, Princeton has proudly held racially segregated commencement ceremonies, with exclusive events for “Pan African,” Asian, Native American, “Latinx,” and Middle Eastern students; there was no evidence of similar opportunities for white or Jewish students. The reality is that Princeton has violated the principles of the Civil Rights Act. It may have gone further: in Morenoff’s estimation, its contracting policy likely ran afoul of New Jersey civil rights law (“among the strongest, most sweeping non-discrimination statutes in the nation”) and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. And its hiring preferences may have violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits racial discrimination in hiring unless the employer can fit one of a few narrow exceptions—which, Morenoff said, there is “good reason to doubt.” While Eisgruber has remained publicly defiant toward the Trump administration, he seems to recognize his vulnerability. The university has been quietly scrubbing its website of DEI materials and recently updated its page to include a statement on Princeton’s ostensible commitment to “equal opportunity and non-discrimination.”... the man responsible is Christopher Eisgruber. “He is in total denial that the problem is internal, that DEI is a problem,” the professor said. “He seems to be doubling down on this insanity.”"
Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber: a Professor on Life at the University Under His Leadership - "In 2020, Princeton president Christopher Eisgruber made headlines for declaring the university guilty of “systemic racism.” He meant systemic racism against racial minorities, but in truth, Eisgruber’s institution has practiced the opposite: systematically discriminated against supposed “oppressors,” like whites and males. Though most Princeton faculty support Eisgruber’s “anti-racism” policy, a faction of dissenters—a few dozen in number—has grown bolder in recent months. In these professors’ telling, Princeton’s president is a vengeful administrator who punishes anyone who questions DEI orthodoxy. They have worked behind the scenes to assemble evidence of his discriminatory policies and hope the Trump administration will restore the principle of colorblind equality on campus...
Professor: Anti-Semitism is really a symptom of a deeper malaise at Princeton, which is that the university decided to go woke and—as President Eisgruber wrote in the last few months of the first Trump administration—declare that we were “systemically racist.” But if we have been systemically racist, it’s been against whites, Jews, Asians, and Indians, in favor of other demographics. We’ve always been told that we have to give special treatment to women and certain demographic minorities... In one meeting of search officers, we were told that 70 percent of the faculty are white, and that the faculty composition has to change to reflect the composition of the class of Princeton, which they themselves had curated. Having engineered the class a certain way, they wanted then to engineer the faculty. I have a colleague in the sciences, and he was told by the department, “You can’t shortlist this person. We can’t hire a white guy.” This colleague went to the chair, who was Jewish, and said to him, “In the 1930s, that’s what they used to say about Jews here at Princeton: ‘We couldn’t hire them because they’re Jewish.’” Everyone knows, but academics are cowards. They see the way the wind is blowing and either go quiet or jump on the bandwagon.
Rufo: And paint me a picture of President Eisgruber. He is really trying to make a reputation on this.
Professor: Here’s what I can tell you: he’s very insecure about the fact that he doesn’t have a Ph.D.; he has a JD. He’s a bit of an antisocial person. He doesn’t socialize with faculty at all. He’s extremely arrogant. It may have to do with his insecurity. And he lives in a bubble. He’s created a board of trustees that is entirely sycophantic. Each board member’s dream was to become a trustee of Princeton, and they will never cross him because they would never want to lose that position. This is the pinnacle of social ascension for them. Last year, Eisgruber was on an American Enterprise Institute panel, in conversation with Ben Sasse. Sasse asked him, “Other than Robbie George, who are the conservatives on campus?” Eisgruber couldn’t come up with a single name, and people started laughing. Robbie is the house conservative, and the general atmosphere is not a good one. I’ve seen a lot of people self-censoring. Certainly, if you’re a conservative student or a Christian or a Zionist, many are afraid and won’t talk. There’s no doubt that, for a while, the woke were ruling the roost.
Rufo: And who are the people Eisgruber has rewarded?
Professor: All the people who’ve been signing these anti-Israel petitions and going to the encampments are being considered for the top administrative positions. For instance, there’s a woman named Ruha Benjamin who has just been given the MacArthur Award. She led a group of students to take over a building here and then exited the building a minute before the police showed up... We have a local chapter of Hamas supporters, and they’re feted by the university. They’re not penalized or punished in any way; they’re feted.
Rufo: And why is that? Not to be crude, but Eisgruber himself is Jewish. You would think that—
Professor: No, hold on. He discovered he was Jewish as an adult. It was a very late discovery. It was something from Ellis Island that his son looked up. I don’t think he grew up Jewish at all. To me, again, the bottom line is this: he’s bought into the ideology that certain people are victims and certain people are oppressors. I think he’s bought into it completely... A scientific department had displayed photographs of all the previous department chairs for the last 70 years—all white men, many of them Jewish. One day, all the pictures disappeared. The administration had removed them from the wall because someone found it objectionable that all these white men should be staring down at them. And yet, a number of those men were key in bringing black students to Princeton in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. But none of that history matters: it’s just a bunch of whites faces, so they removed all the photographs, and no one objected—no one."
We are still told that DEI is to ensure that anyone who is not a straight white guy can get hired
Weird. I thought all Jews were unconditionally pro-Israel
