What do you think about with current News and Opinions?

[guest1163268]

Something to understand what nurses think about re the Current News and their opinions!

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court is historic and sound

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/25/ketanji-brown-jacksons-nomination-supreme-court-is-historic-sound/

Quote

Judge Jackson by all accounts possesses the qualities essential in a Supreme Court justice: a devotion to the rule of law; a commitment to judicial independence; an ability and willingness to collaborate with colleagues whose views and philosophies differ from her own. She also appears to be a keen and careful legal thinker. A graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law School, she was an editor of the law review, and went on to clerk for Justice Stephen G. Breyer, whom Mr. Biden has chosen her to replace. She put in eight years as a trial judge before ascending to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in 2021. And compellingly, she would bring even more diversity to the court as the first public defender on the modern court — an especially proud legacy for a president who has proclaimed his devotion to criminal justice reform.
Senate Republicans should judge her on the basis of her career and character, and refrain from obstructive maneuvering designed to deprive the nominee of a fair hearing. This may seem like a fantasy considering the poisoned state of the Supreme Court confirmation process. Yet the signs so far are somewhat encouraging. Sen. Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) rhetoric in advance of her nomination had been conciliatory — with the minority leader refusing to criticize the president’s pledge to pick a Black woman for the job. He should urge members of his caucus to consider her on her merits. Indeed, three of these Republicans — Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Susan Collins (Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) — have already voted for Judge Jackson once, to confirm her for her current role.

I'll be watching and listening to the confirmation hearings.  

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

On 2/25/2022 at 8:39 AM, Beerman said:

What was important about what Trump said wasn't the "rigged election" comment.  It was that the invasion wouldn't have happened under his watch.  However, its Trump's fault for making comments that distract from what his important.

That fellow certainly has a interesting perspective on the interview.  He seems to have tapped into a audience based on the number of views and comments on his videos.

Anyway, he seems concerned that, in his view, Trump is uninformed and doesn't understand what is going on in Ukraine.  I think instead of this video, his time would have been better spent yesterday listening to Psaki and Biden's comments.

 

Agree, my point wasn't that he claims the election was rigged but that it wouldn't have happened under his watch, and that the congressperson said "there's a reason this didn't happen under Trump".   I really wanted to find a video of him saying this and didn't pick a good one because this guys focus was that he was cut off by Fox.

 I've seen a couple of videos by this person pop up and he does the typical spin towards his audience and agenda, I agree.  

It's also interesting that Fox News, while still loving Trump and his commentary, might be growing weary of the the "election was stolen" idea.  Clearly they want to move towards an anti-Biden agenda not "the election was stolen" agenda.

 

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

22 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Ketanji Brown Jackson’s nomination to the Supreme Court is historic and sound

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/25/ketanji-brown-jacksons-nomination-supreme-court-is-historic-sound/

I'll be watching and listening to the confirmation hearings.  

I think she'll be a shoo in.  I have mixed feelings that no other candidates other than an African American females were considered, but I have no doubt whatsoever she's a good choice and that it is finally time to remove one more glass ceiling for minority females.  

1 hour ago, Tweety said:

I think she'll be a shoo in.  I have mixed feelings that no other candidates other than an African American females were considered, but I have no doubt whatsoever she's a good choice and that it is finally time to remove one more glass ceiling for minority females.  

It balances out the decades when no candidates beyond white men were ever considered for any seat on any legal bench anywhere in this country. 

[Beerman, BSN]

49 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

It balances out the decades when no candidates beyond white men were ever considered for any seat on any legal bench anywhere in this country. 

It shouldn't be about "balancing it out", but rather putting the best candidates up for consideration. 

From what we know, this seems like a well qualified candidate. 

I

30 minutes ago, Beerman said:

It shouldn't be about "balancing it out", but rather putting the best candidates up for consideration. 

From what we know, this seems like a well qualified candidate. 

I

LOL

 In 2022 the best candidate for today's Supreme Court shouldn't come from the white male community.  It shouldn't even be a consideration.  White people have had no problem with considering and elevating ONLY white people to a myriad of highly influential and powerful positions for generations.  Now, all of sudden the appearance of a narrow field of candidates seems to trouble white people.  

Shrugs. 

We'll survive, just like all people of color and non males have survived that white male leadership in the past. 

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

23 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

LOL

 In 2022 the best candidate for today's Supreme Court shouldn't come from the white male community.  It shouldn't even be a consideration.  White people have had no problem with considering and elevating ONLY white people to a myriad of highly influential and powerful positions for generations.  Now, all of sudden the appearance of a narrow field of candidates seems to trouble white people.  

Shrugs. 

We'll survive, just like all people of color and non males have survived that white male leadership in the past. 

This isn't what Beerman said.  The pool of candidates should come from qualified people without regard of gender or race.  He never said that pool should only be white men.

We all know our history of white male domination and in the past this was the only pool.  But is it any more right to have a pool of only African American women?

That being said, even in recent times we don't seem to have the best history of picking the best and the brightest.  Look at the last two the Senate put through.

16 minutes ago, Tweety said:

This isn't what Beerman said.  The pool of candidates should come from qualified people without regard of gender or race.  He never said that pool should only be white men.

We all know our history of white male domination and in the past this was the only pool.  But is it any more right to have a pool of only African American women?

That being said, even in recent times we don't seem to have the best history of picking the best and the brightest.  Look at the last two the Senate put through.

Sure it should now that we are considering people of color and women...now suddenly it's terribly important that we cast that net wide enough to catch some white people. 

Who picked those last 3 candidates...Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney-Barrett? That's right...the Federalist Society picked them. Their anti-abortion agenda resulted in some real questionable appointments and unusual senate procedures.  

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/360598-meet-the-powerful-group-behind-trumps-judicial-nominations

Quote

"The last two Republican presidents have disregarded ABA ratings, and I think they are relying on the Federalist Society to come up with qualified nominees."

As we saw with Trump's nominees, qualifications to serve on the SCOTUS wasn't really the objective...ideology was. Once again, republicans abandoned the American Bar Association non-partisan recommendations that were intended to elevate the most qualified individuals that represented the profession well...preferring the politically motivated Federalist Society.  

 

At this moment in time, there is not a white male jurist in the United States that is more qualified to serve the nation on the SCOTUS simply because the nation requires a black female voice and perspective on that highest bench now, not later.  

[Beerman, BSN]

37 minutes ago, toomuchbaloney said:

At this moment in time, there is not a white male jurist in the United States that is more qualified to serve the nation on the SCOTUS simply because the nation requires a black female voice and perspective on that highest bench now, not later.  

People have various qualifications,  backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives separate from and even among those of a specific gender and color.  What makes her voice and perspective representative of black women?

 

[Tweety, BSN, RN]

It's not that she is representative of black women or the voice.   That's not the point and suggests that we need bias in the Supreme Court.  We need people to interpret the Constitution. 

 The point is that she is a black woman nearly 150 years after the first black woman lawyer.  This is important and historical.

 

 

 

[Beerman, BSN]

27 minutes ago, Tweety said:

It's not that she is representative of black women or the voice.   That's not the point and suggests that we need bias in the Supreme Court.  We need people to interpret the Constitution. 

 The point is that she is a black woman nearly 150 years after the first black woman lawyer.  This is important and historical.

 

 

 

I totally agree. 

The other poster said no other white man is as well-qualified, because they don't have the voice or perspective of a black woman.