The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
My New Taki's Column on Biden's Supreme Court Nominee: You be the Judge
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From my new column in Taki’s Magazine on Biden’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson:

She did well in high school debate, then went to Harvard College and Harvard Law School where she graduated cum laude. She then served three clerkships, eventually clerking for the Supreme Court justice she has been nominated to replace, Stephen Breyer.

How big a role did affirmative action play in her achieving that demanding role?

Some, but likely not a huge amount. Justices only have four clerks, so they can’t afford sheer deadwood. Litigator Ted Frank estimates Breyer only hired a few black clerks:

Breyer didn’t have a lot of African-American clerks. I count 3 out of ~120, though I might be missing one or two from the last decade.

Fellow Clinton pick Ruth Bader Ginsburg hired only a single black clerk out of 119.

I asked Frank:

How do Supreme Court justices rationalize not applying affirmative action to themselves when hiring clerks? Because they know that deep down they, personally, couldn’t be biased? That, after all, they just want clerks who are smart, hardworking, and really into opera?

He replied:

I think it’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between affirmative action in theory (do outreach and then pick on merit; if all else is about equal, pick the underrepresented minority) and practice (anvil on the scale to achieve de facto quotas).

So if even very bright liberal Supreme Court justices don’t really grasp how the racial preferences they impose on other people (but not themselves) work in the real world, how can we expect anybody else to?

But after that high point of clerking for Breyer, Brown Jackson’s career stalled for a decade or more. She even wound up working as a public defender for a while. There have been many attempts to read ideological significance into that, but it strikes me as likely that, as a mother with two young children and a surgeon husband, she wanted a government job with reasonable hours.

In general, she seems like a nice lady, slightly less pathologically ambitious than the typical Supreme Court nominee.

Read the whole thing there.

 
Hide 143 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Didn’t Blompf explicitly say that he appointed Amy Coney Barret because she was a woman?

  2. I am not a legal expert so I have no way of knowing if Ms. Brown Jackson is qualified for the Supreme Court anyway. Does it really matter? At this point, Supreme Court Justices are simply an extension of the political system. On political matters, the Democratic appointed justices vote for the Donkeys, the Republican appointed justices vote for the Elephants. On cultural and social issues, they all vote for the officially approved Cathedral opinion. None of them pay attention to law or precedent, or if they do it’s just to make a create a superficial justification for their predetermined opinion.

    Am I being too cynical? I don’t think so.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @NJ Transit Commuter


    At this point, Supreme Court Justices are simply an extension of the political system. On political matters, the Democratic appointed justices vote for the Donkeys, the Republican appointed justices vote for the Elephants. On cultural and social issues, they all vote for the officially approved Cathedral opinion. None of them pay attention to law or precedent, or if they do it’s just to make a create a superficial justification for their predetermined opinion.
     
    Agree with the thrust of this. Though i would say that some of the Republican justices actually follow the Constitution--though generally taking the more "conservative" spin on it.

    But agree on the gist of this. Basically "progressives" realized that the Supreme Court was a way to impose minoritarian and "progressive" ideology on the nation. And they just did it. Their decisions do not have to make sense.

    If you look at the decisions that have been particularly contentious--Brown**, Furman, Roe, Lawrence, Obergefell--they are just junk. (**Brown would have been contentious even if the actual decision had not been junk.) Roe was such a complete pile of junk that even some liberal publications--e.g. The New Republic-- pointed out it was junk.


    Basically, the Supreme Court imposing minoritarianism over the last few generations has given a stunning demo in why republican government with feedback from the voters is far superior to elite rule:

    A) Even IQ/LSAT "smart" elites aren't necessarily all that wise about reality on the ground.
    B) Quick feedback to go "wait a minute" and correct mistakes is critical.
    C) Elites can be corrupt--morally and ideologically--and impose what they want which not in the interest of the people/nation.
    , @Jack D
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Maybe 90% of what the Supreme Ct. does has no political dimension - patent cases and water right disputes between states and so on.

    It's true that their votes in matters with political dimensions are highly predictable but it's short of 100%. Even in the political cases, although the outcomes are somewhat predictable, their reasoning is quite elaborate and intellectually sound (notwithstanding that it's possible to reach an exactly opposite conclusion reasoning from the same facts). In order for this to work well, it requires a fine legal mind and we have been lucky that most of the Justices have such minds. Putting hacks on there of either political persuasion would not work as well for our country.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @AndrewR, @bomag

    , @Almost Missouri
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    You are correct.

    In Takimag, Steve said,


    Biden isn’t going to waste one of his precious Supreme Court nominations on some quota case who will routinely get out-argued by the other justices
     
    It is kind of Steve to think this way, but it doesn’t work like that anymore. Arguments no longer matter. Votes do: votes out of nine. What the left wants from a black woman is a reliable vote, they don’t care about her argumentative dialectic.

    The justices used to have internal debates and then speak with a relatively uniform voice publicly. Now they just have their clerks write up umpteen-page position statements, and then one party to the appeal gets slightly more signatures: that is a Supreme Court “decision”. The umpteen-page position statements don’t necessarily make any sense and often (looking at Sotomayor) are barely even parseable. But it doesn’t matter. The purpose is not to make sense, it is to serve as a mine for future back-referencing to make future novel rulings look like established “precedent”. This is how we got anchor babies without any legislator ever passing a statute for it. It is a guileful little game doing no credit to the Supreme Court whose downward arc runs parallel to the downward arc of every other western institution.

    Arguably, it is better for the leftist judges to be dummies, because in the unlikely event that reason, debate, and sanity are ever restored to the Capitol, the corpus of nonsensically written dumb judicial opinions can simply be ignored, whereas when dire opinions are written by an able dialectician, like Ginsburg, they require more laborious overruling.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  3. From Wikipedia:
    After high school, Jackson studied government at Harvard University. She performed improv comedy and took classes in drama, and led protests against a student who displayed a Confederate flag from his dorm window.

    Somehow I don’t get the impression that she’s a vigorous advocate for freedom of speech.

    • Replies: @Ralph L
    @Herp McDerp

    There's protesting, and there's defenestrating.

  4. Your usual well researched piece but Why Bother?

    The whole thing is a crock, They know it’s a crock and we know it’s a crock.

    We all make damn sure we get a look at any new serious service provider before giving them any consideration. It really is time to go our separate ways.

    • Agree: Ben tillman, Old Prude
  5. I’m always skeptical of extreme outlier smart lawyers. With a 145 IQ, you could have been a dermatologist who makes more money and actually makes lives better. Instead you decided to enter a terrible profession with terrible job satisfaction. Most days you’re leaving the world net even, and many days you’re making the world worse.

    What character flaws convince these people to do this?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Batman

    I can't speak for others but I personally never had the slightest interest in becoming a doctor and poking at sick and infected people all day. Not for one minute did I ever consider it. Just because you have the IQ to do something doesn't mean that it interests you.

    I can't think of any of my friends who seriously considered medicine but became lawyers or vice versa. IQ is just one attribute, pay is just one attribute, there's a lot more to a choice of career. They say if you love your work then you never work a day in your life.

    Why don't 100% of doctors become dermatologists? I have a nephew who became a gastroenterologist. I don't know why you would want to look up people's asses with a tube all day but that's what appealed to him. I can detect no discernable character flaws in him, or at least none that correlate with his chosen specialty. Someone has got to do it.

    , @Kaz
    @Batman

    I say the same for people becoming doctors instead of programmers today. They better be in it for the passion otherwise they're screwed.

    Top IQ people can effortlessly pull in 300k+ before they hit 30 in programming.

    While in Medicine you don't make any money until you finish med school, residency, fellowships, etc.. and then you have to do real hard work on top of that.

    Replies: @Erik L

    , @pirelli
    @Batman

    I’ve never taken an IQ test, but I got a 172 on my LSAT (without taking a prep course) so would guess my IQ is in the neighborhood of 140. I never considered becoming a doctor. Hospitals depress the living hell out of me. Plus, although I always did well enough in math and science, I enjoyed English, History, and Foreign Language much, much more.

    Medicine isn’t for everyone with a high IQ, nor for that matter are finance or consulting. I think the law appeals to slightly neurotic people with high verbal IQ. Also probably appeals somewhat more to “intellectual” types than any of those other professions, though the idea of the law as “the last learned profession” is mostly a mirage. It certainly appeals to academically inclined people who like to think they have a talent for public speaking, performing, etc. (I’m calling myself out here, and sadly I very seldom get the opportunity to use my dubious skills in those areas in my career. Anyway, it pays well, and it’s not all that bad.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @Batman


    What character flaws convince these people to do this?
     
    It's only 2 anecdotes, but out of 2 lawyers I've know that were more than acquaintances, both had real character flaws to the point of my wondering if there was a term from psychology to describe it.

    What I wondered is if it was law school or their lawyer work that made them this way or if they became lawyers because of their weird properties.

    As for medicine, I could have done that, as a number of friends did. It's not the blood and guts that I don't like - I even went down to the basement and saw my friend's cadaver - she was a young lady who'd been struck by lightening, and my friend sort of had a crush on her. Anyway, what I don't like is thinking about all the ways the human body can screw up. It's amazing we're all here at all!

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @AnotherDad

    , @R.G. Camara
    @Batman


    What character flaws convince these people to do this?
     
    Sociopathy and hating science class.
    , @Servant of Gla'aki
    @Batman


    I’m always skeptical of extreme outlier smart lawyers...What character flaws convince these people to do this?
     
    Speaking as someone born in the year 1970, I was subjected to tons of cinematic & TV propaganda during the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, all to the effect that being a lawyer was, like, the greatest job imaginable. Or maybe #2, after journalist, LOL.

    All this propaganda doubtless impacted the choices some people made, especially among women.
    , @Mike Tre
    @Batman

    "What character flaws convince these people to do this?"

    The want for money and power, on the path (obfuscation) easiest to get it.

  6. Why is anyone discussing whether Affirmative Action is Constitutional? You’d have to be a moron or a liar to say it is.

    As much as I don’t think much of any of the SCROTUS judges other than Clarence Thomas, all of them can read well enough to see that there’s nothing in the Constitution or any of its Amendments, even the worst of them, to allow AA. The Feral Gov’t should have no say in the matter to begin with per Amendment X, which is one sentence long! So, we’ve had, and we’ve got, a bunch of robed liars.

    Therefore, we know it’s all political, as the guy from New Jersey already explained. Why would we need the best and brightest, Steve? It’s a worthless endeavor to worry about it, unless you think US Constitution 2.0, the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, will be thrown out before some of these people die.

    Since I mentioned Clarance Thomas, he goes to show you that, even the very few who care about the US Constitution don’t need to be some stars with the best LSATs. They just need to be men of integrity. There aren’t many.

    • Agree: Adam Smith
    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Why is anyone discussing whether Affirmative Action is Constitutional? You’d have to be a moron or a liar to say it is.

     

    The Suprem Court has made itself an intellectual laughing stock for 50 years by inventing preposterous rationales to uphold the practice. (E.g., the "benefits of 'diversity' are so axiomatic they trump 'equal protection' under law.") But everytime it should have been killed, the 5th vote looses his/her nerve. With Kavanaugh and Barett, there may now be six votes to invoke Robert's dictum that "the best way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating by race."
  7. There’s the problem. The Justices get to pick and hire their own Clerks. Watch how quickly AA would change if the Justices had their Clerks appointed for them, you know, based on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.

    • Thanks: Ian Smith
  8. Instead of Miss Brown Jackson, I would rather see Mr. Jackson Brown up there, who at least understood “It takes a clear mind to MAKE it.” At least I THINK he was mumbling about Supreme Court decision making, but it was hard to tell there in the back of the bus.

    From a different album:

    Doctor, my eyes, tell me what is wrong.
    Was I unwise to leave them open for so long …

    Holy Moley, that was 50 years ago!!

    • Replies: @Wade Hampton
    @Achmed E. Newman

    With all due respect to the sensitive artiste, the only reason to listen to this stuff is the lap steel guitar of David Lindley. This is apodictically true.

    Still the sensitive artiste did raise Mr. Dave to national attention so he does deserve credit for that. Here are Dave and Bonnie Raitt doing one of the artiste's tunes for a tribute album, 50 years on.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoA_f7H-g1Y

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @anon

    , @danand
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "...there in the back of the bus"

    To hear Tiger Woods tell it yesterday at his HOF induction, back of the bus was also his plight:



    "You had to be twice as good to get half a chance (so) I made practice so hard, hurt so much, because I want to make sure I was ready come game time.

    "I was not allowed into the clubhouses. The colour of my skin dictated that ... As I got older that drove me even more."
     

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @the one they call Desanex
    @Achmed E. Newman

    I know what was wrong with his eyes. He had hair in them! Jackson Browne’s haircut reminds me of this:
    https://www.horsetackdatabase.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/sue-hughes-OzMleYUe5vQ-unsplash.jpg

    , @cityview
    @Achmed E. Newman

    Jackson Browne. But "it takes a clear mind ..." was accompanist David Lindley.

    From Running On Empty: "but the only time that seems too short is the time that we get to play ..."

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Achmed E. Newman


    Instead of M[r]s Brown Jackson, I would rather see Mr. Jackson Brown[e] up there...
     
    Clyde Jackson Browne. Never forget that. Even though he probably wishes you would.
  9. OT, but last night I watched a clip of VP Harris hyping the benefits of a future full of electric school buses, mass transit and long haul tractor trailers. So why isn’t biden and harris’ motorcade made up of electric vehicles?

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Buffalo Joe

    4chan would hack them and send them all off the nearest bridge.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

  10. @Buffalo Joe
    OT, but last night I watched a clip of VP Harris hyping the benefits of a future full of electric school buses, mass transit and long haul tractor trailers. So why isn't biden and harris' motorcade made up of electric vehicles?

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    4chan would hack them and send them all off the nearest bridge.

    • Thanks: Buffalo Joe
    • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Mike Tre

    This comment was approved before another comment I made still waiting moderation, listed as comment #2. The truth hurts, I suppose.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @TheJester

  11. In other news:

    Make no mistake when you worry about affording food or transportation soon: they hate you.

    • Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin
    @nebulafox

    I cannot see pictures of Brandon and "Dr." Jill without recalling Nicolaeu and Elena Ceauçescu, another couple of schlubs caught in a maelstrom of events and circumstances beyond their control.

    May Brandon safely retire soon to his cozy basement, where he may spend the remainder of his days free from the prying eyes of the world, happily gumming bowlfuls of cold oatmeal.

    , @AnotherDad
    @nebulafox


    JUST IN: Biden to request $2.6 billion to promote gender equity worldwide http://hill.cm/GYGKrUt
     
    You know what i could do with $2.6 billion? Holy Cow! And there would be trickle down to the rest of you folks--i promise.

    Replies: @Jack D

  12. As far as I know, Clarence Thomas is the only Justice to routinely take clerks from non-elite schools.

    That along with his completely justified refusal to participate in oral arguments (which are theater and don’t matter) are two more reasons he’s the man.

    My SCOTUS would just be giving Clarence nine votes.

    The complete disintegration of “conservatives” like Roberts is enraging.

    • Replies: @E. Rekshun
    @Whereismyhandle

    As far as I know, Clarence Thomas is the only Justice to routinely take clerks from non-elite schools...The complete disintegration of “conservatives” like Roberts is enraging.

    I've read several times that Kavanaugh has only hired female law clerks.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

  13. Does the denial by elites of the existence of the vast affirmative action apparatus lead some members of the public to feel that “nothing is being done” to address racial inequality when in reality much is being done? Does this taboo concerning discussion about affirmative action actually increase racial resentment?

  14. Roberts proved Justices don’t matter and Kavanaugh is re-proving it. The entire system needs an overhaul. We need a legal system that is okay with self-defense and not okay with burning a police station to ash.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @J.Ross

    https://twitter.com/RWApodcast/status/1501653976160342020?cxt=HHwWiMC4ibqV-dYpAAAA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L92R95-v2Jw

    Guess Ukraine will make every Russkie soldier wary of being there at Putin's initiative.

    Running Russkie dead body toll figures by org.


    The Russians are reportedly using mobile crematoriums to "incinerate dead soldiers" amid fears Putin is trying to hide the scale of his war.

    Ukrainian authorities claim that more than 11,000 Russian troops have been killed since the Kremlin's invasion, but this figure has not been independently verified.

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/russia-refuses-take-back-dead-soldiers-ukraine/
     

    U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that between 2,000 and 4,000 Russian soldiers have been killed in the two-week invasion of Ukraine — possibly more than the number of Americans killed in the 20-year war in Afghanistan.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-intel-agencies-russia-not-want-engage-directly-us-military-rcna19128

     


    Ukrainian sources say Russia has lost 11,000 troops but verifiable sources put the figure closer to 10,000, according to Prof Clarke.

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-lost-equipment-casualties-and-communication-failures-how-the-russian-military-is-faring-in-ukraine-12561267

     

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @teo toon
    @J.Ross

    We need a legal system that is not built on case law, which was brought to us by Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. The case law system is Talmudic thinking and as such it makes the black letter law to be of no effect.

    , @Jack P
    @J.Ross

    One fix you might get even bipartisan agreement on is Supreme court justices to serve finite fixed terms. My plan would be three six year terms, with Senate votes to reconfirm after the first and second terms.

    Once a "conservative" judge is confirmed, the incentives are all in favor of caving to the left. They live in a deep blue city, so to their spouses and kids. Their families don't want to be pariahs. So we get tinkering, at best. Having the Senate revote means there's some accountability.

  15. Aaaaaad… another justice from Harvard.

    With all this talk about “diversity,” you’d think you’d get a justice or two from SMU or BYU. But noooo. No matter what their melanin level or estrogen count is, it’s all Harvard-Yale, Harvard-Yale.

    Funny how that works.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    @Dr. X

    It's a big club, and you ain't in it.

    , @NOTA
    @Dr. X

    We want the kind of diversity where everyone looks different but thinks the same way, rather than the one where everyone thinks differently but looks the same.

  16. @Achmed E. Newman
    Instead of Miss Brown Jackson, I would rather see Mr. Jackson Brown up there, who at least understood "It takes a clear mind to MAKE it." At least I THINK he was mumbling about Supreme Court decision making, but it was hard to tell there in the back of the bus.

    From a different album:

    Doctor, my eyes, tell me what is wrong.
    Was I unwise to leave them open for so long ...


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqoI65z-jo

    Holy Moley, that was 50 years ago!!

    Replies: @Wade Hampton, @danand, @the one they call Desanex, @cityview, @Reg Cæsar

    With all due respect to the sensitive artiste, the only reason to listen to this stuff is the lap steel guitar of David Lindley. This is apodictically true.

    Still the sensitive artiste did raise Mr. Dave to national attention so he does deserve credit for that. Here are Dave and Bonnie Raitt doing one of the artiste’s tunes for a tribute album, 50 years on.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Wade Hampton

    Yeah, he's great with that steel guitar. Even so, the melodies are pretty good. Most of that's on Jackson Brown, as he wrote most of the songs he performed (some with co-credits). Doctor, My Eyes, for example, shows songwriting credits solely by him, as does You Love the Thunder, another very good one.

    , @anon
    @Wade Hampton

    Being a sensitive singer/songwriter was the style then and Jackson was better than most. But I'll agree, the stuff sounds weird now (I went back just now and listened to some of it).

    But the thing that stands out for me is what a bad singer he was (and maybe still is ........ haven't listened for a while). He seemed incapable of moving off a general shrill-ish tone in many songs. Some he did alright, though.

  17. More like Judge Jumanji

    • LOL: AndrewR, Dream
    • Replies: @For what it's worth
    @DK Dharmaraj

    "More like Judge Jumanji"

    Haha, *Dharmaraj.* Oh, wait, mocking people's names is childish.

  18. She even wound up working as a public defender for a while. There have been many attempts to read ideological significance into that, but it strikes me as likely that, as a mother with two young children and a surgeon husband, she wanted a government job with reasonable hours.

    Becoming a public defender with those credentials is just… bizarre.

    If it was government work she was after, the natural career path would have been assistant district attorney, or something like that, followed by a position with a well-known criminal defense firm.

    Being a public defender is nasty and demoralizing.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Patrick in SC

    A high school classmate of mine who is a U of C law grad became a public defender after a short stint in Big Law. He does appellate work.

    My liberal cousin who works in the legal department of J.P. Morgan Chase says, "The trouble with criminal law is your clients are criminals."

  19. So if even very bright liberal Supreme Court justices don’t really grasp how the racial preferences they impose on other people (but not themselves) work in the real world, how can we expect anybody else to?

    Oh, they grasp them just fine; they just believe in the concept of “rules for thee, not for me”. In a similar vein, Congress exempts themselves from laws they pass all of the time.

    • Agree: P. Cleburne
  20. @NJ Transit Commuter
    I am not a legal expert so I have no way of knowing if Ms. Brown Jackson is qualified for the Supreme Court anyway. Does it really matter? At this point, Supreme Court Justices are simply an extension of the political system. On political matters, the Democratic appointed justices vote for the Donkeys, the Republican appointed justices vote for the Elephants. On cultural and social issues, they all vote for the officially approved Cathedral opinion. None of them pay attention to law or precedent, or if they do it’s just to make a create a superficial justification for their predetermined opinion.

    Am I being too cynical? I don’t think so.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Jack D, @Almost Missouri

    At this point, Supreme Court Justices are simply an extension of the political system. On political matters, the Democratic appointed justices vote for the Donkeys, the Republican appointed justices vote for the Elephants. On cultural and social issues, they all vote for the officially approved Cathedral opinion. None of them pay attention to law or precedent, or if they do it’s just to make a create a superficial justification for their predetermined opinion.

    Agree with the thrust of this. Though i would say that some of the Republican justices actually follow the Constitution–though generally taking the more “conservative” spin on it.

    But agree on the gist of this. Basically “progressives” realized that the Supreme Court was a way to impose minoritarian and “progressive” ideology on the nation. And they just did it. Their decisions do not have to make sense.

    If you look at the decisions that have been particularly contentious–Brown**, Furman, Roe, Lawrence, Obergefell–they are just junk. (**Brown would have been contentious even if the actual decision had not been junk.) Roe was such a complete pile of junk that even some liberal publications–e.g. The New Republic– pointed out it was junk.

    Basically, the Supreme Court imposing minoritarianism over the last few generations has given a stunning demo in why republican government with feedback from the voters is far superior to elite rule:

    A) Even IQ/LSAT “smart” elites aren’t necessarily all that wise about reality on the ground.
    B) Quick feedback to go “wait a minute” and correct mistakes is critical.
    C) Elites can be corrupt–morally and ideologically–and impose what they want which not in the interest of the people/nation.

  21. An analyst sent me a Monte Carlo simulation of 2008–2014 data from the Law Schools Admission Council. Across the country, there would annually be about 1,000 white men scoring 170 or higher compared with 550 white women. And there would be about seven black men and three black women.

    So it’s quite possible that Biden’s pick would have been one of those three in her year. After all, for the Supreme Court he only has to pick one black woman out of all the lawyers in the country, so he could well have found one who can do the job up to a reasonable standard.

    So Steve is saying that it’s theoretically possible that Biden’s SCOTUS nominee is one of the three black women in the entire U.S. who scored high enough to be in the bottom 25% of a typical Yale Class. So what’s he’s telling us is . . . there is a chance.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Hypnotoad666

    I don't think that there's ANY chance that Biden couldn't have found a white man (or even a white lady) who is smarter but the Supreme Ct. is not mean to consist of the 9 highest scoring LSAT takers in America. I think it's an issue of thresholds. She is smart enough to pass the threshold and be reasonably competent at this line of work and then the rest turns on other issues.

    Could she have gotten into Harvard with her LSAT if she was white? Probably not, but she could have gotten into say Notre Dame where Barrett went and no conservative thinks that Barrett is too dumb.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    , @Dennis Dale
    @Hypnotoad666

    After she takes her first giant shit on the Constitution and flushes it down with some trite ideological reasoning, we'll come back to ask Steve "what was all that 'one of those three' talk?"

  22. @NJ Transit Commuter
    I am not a legal expert so I have no way of knowing if Ms. Brown Jackson is qualified for the Supreme Court anyway. Does it really matter? At this point, Supreme Court Justices are simply an extension of the political system. On political matters, the Democratic appointed justices vote for the Donkeys, the Republican appointed justices vote for the Elephants. On cultural and social issues, they all vote for the officially approved Cathedral opinion. None of them pay attention to law or precedent, or if they do it’s just to make a create a superficial justification for their predetermined opinion.

    Am I being too cynical? I don’t think so.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Jack D, @Almost Missouri

    Maybe 90% of what the Supreme Ct. does has no political dimension – patent cases and water right disputes between states and so on.

    It’s true that their votes in matters with political dimensions are highly predictable but it’s short of 100%. Even in the political cases, although the outcomes are somewhat predictable, their reasoning is quite elaborate and intellectually sound (notwithstanding that it’s possible to reach an exactly opposite conclusion reasoning from the same facts). In order for this to work well, it requires a fine legal mind and we have been lucky that most of the Justices have such minds. Putting hacks on there of either political persuasion would not work as well for our country.

    • Agree: PaceLaw
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Jack D

    ven in the political cases, although the outcomes are somewhat predictable, their reasoning is quite elaborate and intellectually sound

    It's quite elaborate because it's not intellectually sound. Con law is a complete cluster because bored Justices want to be social engineers.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    , @AndrewR
    @Jack D

    Water rights aren't political? Holy smokes, you are a clown.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @bomag
    @Jack D


    Even in the political cases, although the outcomes are somewhat predictable, their reasoning is quite elaborate and intellectually sound.../blockquote>

    That is no comfort.

    The judicial branch naturally leans left, and has been a large driver in society's drift.
     

     
  23. @DK Dharmaraj
    More like Judge Jumanji

    Replies: @For what it's worth

    “More like Judge Jumanji”

    Haha, *Dharmaraj.* Oh, wait, mocking people’s names is childish.

  24. During this Ketanji kerfuffle, I’ve never heard anyone (besides myself) mention a salient precedent from recent American history.

    Does anybody but me remember that this isn’t the first time that a presidential candidate made a campaign promise about a demographic factor he would use to in making a Supreme Court pick? That candidate promised that “one of my first” nominees would be a woman. I heard no gripes from either side about it – other than my own.

    And, true to his word, Ronald Reagan’s first nominee was Sandra Day O’Connor, the one who hoped to kick the affirmative action can twenty-five years down the road – after benefiting from it herself.

    • Agree: Pixo
  25. @Batman
    I'm always skeptical of extreme outlier smart lawyers. With a 145 IQ, you could have been a dermatologist who makes more money and actually makes lives better. Instead you decided to enter a terrible profession with terrible job satisfaction. Most days you're leaving the world net even, and many days you're making the world worse.

    What character flaws convince these people to do this?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Kaz, @pirelli, @Achmed E. Newman, @R.G. Camara, @Servant of Gla'aki, @Mike Tre

    I can’t speak for others but I personally never had the slightest interest in becoming a doctor and poking at sick and infected people all day. Not for one minute did I ever consider it. Just because you have the IQ to do something doesn’t mean that it interests you.

    I can’t think of any of my friends who seriously considered medicine but became lawyers or vice versa. IQ is just one attribute, pay is just one attribute, there’s a lot more to a choice of career. They say if you love your work then you never work a day in your life.

    Why don’t 100% of doctors become dermatologists? I have a nephew who became a gastroenterologist. I don’t know why you would want to look up people’s asses with a tube all day but that’s what appealed to him. I can detect no discernable character flaws in him, or at least none that correlate with his chosen specialty. Someone has got to do it.

  26. Steve, I was all ready to barge in here and defend how much work being a public defender is (I am a decade into a career at a large west coast metro office with lots of resources and I would consider myself an expert in complex forensic mental health homicides and definitely worked a ton more than I wanted to with small kids), but then I saw she was an appellate public defender in the DC federal office.

    Yeah, they have a big caseload, but appellate work is much much more laid back then complex trial felony work

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Conflicted Barrister

    Your clients are archaic humans who simply cannot function in advanced technological society. You may as well be defending baboons.

  27. OT: This guy’s in Ukraine, and he claims that the Ukrainians are stage-managing and faking things right and left for the media. Here’s his feed:

  28. @Hypnotoad666

    An analyst sent me a Monte Carlo simulation of 2008–2014 data from the Law Schools Admission Council. Across the country, there would annually be about 1,000 white men scoring 170 or higher compared with 550 white women. And there would be about seven black men and three black women.

    So it’s quite possible that Biden’s pick would have been one of those three in her year. After all, for the Supreme Court he only has to pick one black woman out of all the lawyers in the country, so he could well have found one who can do the job up to a reasonable standard.
     
    So Steve is saying that it's theoretically possible that Biden's SCOTUS nominee is one of the three black women in the entire U.S. who scored high enough to be in the bottom 25% of a typical Yale Class. So what's he's telling us is . . . there is a chance.

    https://youtu.be/KX5jNnDMfxA

    Replies: @Jack D, @Dennis Dale

    I don’t think that there’s ANY chance that Biden couldn’t have found a white man (or even a white lady) who is smarter but the Supreme Ct. is not mean to consist of the 9 highest scoring LSAT takers in America. I think it’s an issue of thresholds. She is smart enough to pass the threshold and be reasonably competent at this line of work and then the rest turns on other issues.

    Could she have gotten into Harvard with her LSAT if she was white? Probably not, but she could have gotten into say Notre Dame where Barrett went and no conservative thinks that Barrett is too dumb.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @Jack D


    the Supreme Ct. is not mean to consist of the 9 highest scoring LSAT takers in America.
     
    I totally agree. All the talk about being smart misses the point that what you really want from a judge is . . . good judgment.

    The reason that doesn't enter the debate much is probably because: (a) it's intangible; and (b) it tends to blow up the myth that the SCOTUS justices just "call balls and strikes" using their big brains rather than making policy and political judgments.

    Replies: @Seneca44

  29. The Republicans would be smart to let this one go. There’s nothing to be gained by holding up her nomination. The Court has had many mediocrities. She’ll just be one more.

    BTW, Richard Spencer is plagiarizing you:

  30. @Batman
    I'm always skeptical of extreme outlier smart lawyers. With a 145 IQ, you could have been a dermatologist who makes more money and actually makes lives better. Instead you decided to enter a terrible profession with terrible job satisfaction. Most days you're leaving the world net even, and many days you're making the world worse.

    What character flaws convince these people to do this?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Kaz, @pirelli, @Achmed E. Newman, @R.G. Camara, @Servant of Gla'aki, @Mike Tre

    I say the same for people becoming doctors instead of programmers today. They better be in it for the passion otherwise they’re screwed.

    Top IQ people can effortlessly pull in 300k+ before they hit 30 in programming.

    While in Medicine you don’t make any money until you finish med school, residency, fellowships, etc.. and then you have to do real hard work on top of that.

    • Replies: @Erik L
    @Kaz

    Can pull that in with a bit of luck and the right job...it is hardly guaranteed. In fact I doubt the overwhelming majority of programmers, even with 145 IQ would be making that, and hardly any before 30. Those are high profile cases and usually in extremely expensive areas to live in. It is also potentially a near term phenomenon that might not last the remaining 30-40 years of a 30 year old programmer's career

  31. I think that Jar Jar Binks will be an excellent addition to the Supreme Court.

    Jar Jar can’t be any worse than Roberts and BK and ACB.

    At this point who cares?

  32. “But after that high point of clerking for Breyer, Brown Jackson’s career stalled for a decade or more. She even wound up working as a public defender for a while. There have been many attempts to read ideological significance into that, but it strikes me as likely that, as a mother with two young children and a surgeon husband, she wanted a government job with reasonable hours.”

    This doesn’t make sense. As a black woman graduate of Harvard law school she should have had much better opportunities. Lots of companies and organizations would love to prove how progressive they are by having someone like her on board and would pay a fortune while requiring little real work.

    That she chose to be a public defender is odd. The workload is high, the pay low and the hours long. Public defenders actually have to show up and work. For government employment, it may be among the worst, particularly for someone who went to Harvard Law School.

    Either she’s a a committed idealist and true believer or perhaps even with an Ivy League degree she was still unemployable for some reason.

  33. @J.Ross
    Roberts proved Justices don't matter and Kavanaugh is re-proving it. The entire system needs an overhaul. We need a legal system that is okay with self-defense and not okay with burning a police station to ash.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @teo toon, @Jack P

    Guess Ukraine will make every Russkie soldier wary of being there at Putin’s initiative.

    Running Russkie dead body toll figures by org.

    The Russians are reportedly using mobile crematoriums to “incinerate dead soldiers” amid fears Putin is trying to hide the scale of his war.

    Ukrainian authorities claim that more than 11,000 Russian troops have been killed since the Kremlin’s invasion, but this figure has not been independently verified.

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/russia-refuses-take-back-dead-soldiers-ukraine/

    U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that between 2,000 and 4,000 Russian soldiers have been killed in the two-week invasion of Ukraine — possibly more than the number of Americans killed in the 20-year war in Afghanistan.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-intel-agencies-russia-not-want-engage-directly-us-military-rcna19128

    Ukrainian sources say Russia has lost 11,000 troops but verifiable sources put the figure closer to 10,000, according to Prof Clarke.

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-lost-equipment-casualties-and-communication-failures-how-the-russian-military-is-faring-in-ukraine-12561267

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Joe Stalin


    U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that between 2,000 and 4,000 Russian soldiers have been killed in the two-week invasion of Ukraine — possibly more than the number of Americans killed in the 20-year war in Afghanistan.
     
    It is not widely understood, even by US intelligence agencies apparently, that the Afghan War was something of an off-balance sheet war. Deploying soldiers as "contractors" meant that when they got killed they weren't added to the embarrassing "military dead" category. And they got killed a lot. Per Wiki, 2420 US military dead but 3937 contractor dead. Not all the contractors were American, but most probably were. That total is about the same as, or perhaps more than, the US dead in Iraq. But most of the troops in Afghanistan were there at Obama's behest rather than Bush's behest, so the global media didn't care.
  34. Steve wrote:

    “But the meat and potatoes of lawyering—writing contracts—is basically a medieval form of coding. Your job is to anticipate what could go wrong in a deal and write if-then-else statements to protect your client from those eventualities.”

    Nice!

    • Replies: @Technite78
    @ytcarl

    I liked that passage too... except that the "programming language" of contracts has enough ambiguity in it to allow two opposing parties to reasonably come to different opinions of which branch an if-then-else statement should actually be chosen.

    I've been involved in arbitration over a bond prospectus (a form of legal contract)... in which there were two mutually exclusive ways of interpreting the cash flows to various tranches of the obligation. That was a result of it being poorly written, but it's just as possible to intentionally create ambiguous language in legal contract... so that each party to the contract can interpret the text in a way that is advantageous to themselves.

    Most software developers consider code that results in ambiguous execution to be faulty; in contract law ambiguity can be seen as job security.

  35. @Jack D
    @Hypnotoad666

    I don't think that there's ANY chance that Biden couldn't have found a white man (or even a white lady) who is smarter but the Supreme Ct. is not mean to consist of the 9 highest scoring LSAT takers in America. I think it's an issue of thresholds. She is smart enough to pass the threshold and be reasonably competent at this line of work and then the rest turns on other issues.

    Could she have gotten into Harvard with her LSAT if she was white? Probably not, but she could have gotten into say Notre Dame where Barrett went and no conservative thinks that Barrett is too dumb.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    the Supreme Ct. is not mean to consist of the 9 highest scoring LSAT takers in America.

    I totally agree. All the talk about being smart misses the point that what you really want from a judge is . . . good judgment.

    The reason that doesn’t enter the debate much is probably because: (a) it’s intangible; and (b) it tends to blow up the myth that the SCOTUS justices just “call balls and strikes” using their big brains rather than making policy and political judgments.

    • Replies: @Seneca44
    @Hypnotoad666

    Another not unexpected side effect of AA is that it calls into question the qualifications of even the best candidates. Even if Ms. Brown Jackson were absolutely the best constitutional scholar and judge in the US, someone would always wonder if she got there via a racial spoils system.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  36. • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Ghost of Bull Moose


    OT: Trannies are totally normal.
     
    Harvey Marcelin = Rename chivalry!
  37. @Herp McDerp
    From Wikipedia:
    After high school, Jackson studied government at Harvard University. She performed improv comedy and took classes in drama, and led protests against a student who displayed a Confederate flag from his dorm window.

    Somehow I don't get the impression that she's a vigorous advocate for freedom of speech.

    Replies: @Ralph L

    There’s protesting, and there’s defenestrating.

    • LOL: Ben tillman
  38. OT [through drywall] Steve! Steve! WSJ sub paying for self! Respected economist: “It’s the immigrants and the gutting of labor [which is the same phenomenon], stupid!”
    https://archive.ph/dERJc
    Come out of the stumble-strewn darkness and barrelfish shooting of the Dead Media and come on down to Wall Street!

    [Charles Goodheart] argued that the low inflation since the 1990s wasn’t so much the result of astute central-bank policies, but rather the addition of hundreds of millions of inexpensive Chinese and Eastern European workers to the globalized economy, a demographic dividend that pushed down wages and the prices of products they exported to rich countries. Together with new female workers and the large baby-boomer generation, the labor force supplying advanced economies more than doubled between 1991 and 2018.

    When you give money to unlettered trady scum like me, you give the consumer economy a shot of Red Bull. When none of my caste goes out on Friday night because we can’t, you are left to government recycling (which almost never creates wealth) or the wizards of finance (who are positively destructive to the rest of the economy and country). It’s Henry Ford guaranteeing his own sales by paying his own workers enough to buy their own product, or it’s Larry Fink playing bully with cash piles, and we went with the Fink.

  39. I’m sure this lady will restore the court to its big government, full strength.

    It would be refreshing if a president picked a legal professional who could actually read and understand the simple English that the USC is written in, or else a non-professional (who simply possessed smarts and common sense).

    The narrowness of the field isn’t that it was limited, this time, to a BF. It’s that it’s limited to a licensed lawyer every time; even more offensive, to graduates of the few, most elite, lawyer schools.

    In the USA, within the ages of 18-60, there are some 180M citizens, 715K of whom are attorneys (50K elites). Even if only 1 in 1,000 non-lawyers have the raw intelligence “necessary” to do the job of justice (i.e. an IQ >= 146, though the USC doesn’t require a min), then that means there are ~179,000 perfectly capable American non-lawyers who are being overlooked (discriminated against).

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  40. @Batman
    I'm always skeptical of extreme outlier smart lawyers. With a 145 IQ, you could have been a dermatologist who makes more money and actually makes lives better. Instead you decided to enter a terrible profession with terrible job satisfaction. Most days you're leaving the world net even, and many days you're making the world worse.

    What character flaws convince these people to do this?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Kaz, @pirelli, @Achmed E. Newman, @R.G. Camara, @Servant of Gla'aki, @Mike Tre

    I’ve never taken an IQ test, but I got a 172 on my LSAT (without taking a prep course) so would guess my IQ is in the neighborhood of 140. I never considered becoming a doctor. Hospitals depress the living hell out of me. Plus, although I always did well enough in math and science, I enjoyed English, History, and Foreign Language much, much more.

    Medicine isn’t for everyone with a high IQ, nor for that matter are finance or consulting. I think the law appeals to slightly neurotic people with high verbal IQ. Also probably appeals somewhat more to “intellectual” types than any of those other professions, though the idea of the law as “the last learned profession” is mostly a mirage. It certainly appeals to academically inclined people who like to think they have a talent for public speaking, performing, etc. (I’m calling myself out here, and sadly I very seldom get the opportunity to use my dubious skills in those areas in my career. Anyway, it pays well, and it’s not all that bad.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    @pirelli


    think the law appeals to slightly neurotic people with high verbal IQ.
     
    I don't know about the neurotic part, but it's a good choice for those with high verbal vs. math/spatial IQ. What else are you going to do, become a journalist? Blecht.
  41. @Batman
    I'm always skeptical of extreme outlier smart lawyers. With a 145 IQ, you could have been a dermatologist who makes more money and actually makes lives better. Instead you decided to enter a terrible profession with terrible job satisfaction. Most days you're leaving the world net even, and many days you're making the world worse.

    What character flaws convince these people to do this?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Kaz, @pirelli, @Achmed E. Newman, @R.G. Camara, @Servant of Gla'aki, @Mike Tre

    What character flaws convince these people to do this?

    It’s only 2 anecdotes, but out of 2 lawyers I’ve know that were more than acquaintances, both had real character flaws to the point of my wondering if there was a term from psychology to describe it.

    What I wondered is if it was law school or their lawyer work that made them this way or if they became lawyers because of their weird properties.

    As for medicine, I could have done that, as a number of friends did. It’s not the blood and guts that I don’t like – I even went down to the basement and saw my friend’s cadaver – she was a young lady who’d been struck by lightening, and my friend sort of had a crush on her. Anyway, what I don’t like is thinking about all the ways the human body can screw up. It’s amazing we’re all here at all!

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Achmed E. Newman


    character flaw
     

    my friend’s cadaver – she was a young lady who’d been struck by [lightning], and my friend sort of had a crush on her
     
    Lol.

    (Alternatively, if you really did mean that she had died from being struck by "lightening", does this explain why transracialism is not a thing? But what does it say about your friend: had a crush on a dead lightened woman that he wouldn't have had on her pre-lightening and pre-death? Or did he already have the crush when the light[e]ning struck?)
    , @AnotherDad
    @Achmed E. Newman


    I even went down to the basement and saw my friend’s cadaver – she was a young lady who’d been struck by lightening, and my friend sort of had a crush on her.
     
    I hope we're talking about the basement of a hospital or medical school, not your friend's house?

    But then my tastes run much more toward girls whose pupils dilate and who respond appropriately to physical stimuli.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Reg Cæsar

  42. @Wade Hampton
    @Achmed E. Newman

    With all due respect to the sensitive artiste, the only reason to listen to this stuff is the lap steel guitar of David Lindley. This is apodictically true.

    Still the sensitive artiste did raise Mr. Dave to national attention so he does deserve credit for that. Here are Dave and Bonnie Raitt doing one of the artiste's tunes for a tribute album, 50 years on.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoA_f7H-g1Y

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @anon

    Yeah, he’s great with that steel guitar. Even so, the melodies are pretty good. Most of that’s on Jackson Brown, as he wrote most of the songs he performed (some with co-credits). Doctor, My Eyes, for example, shows songwriting credits solely by him, as does You Love the Thunder, another very good one.

  43. According to Wikipedia, Judge Jackson’s husband is a “Boston Brahmin.” Mr. and Mrs. Jackson might have to convert to Catholicism or Judaism before the confirmation hearings.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @JohnnyD

    The meaning of the term "Boston Brahmin" has changed.

    Now it just means a dot/pajeet who lives in Back Bay and has taken your job.

    Replies: @Brutusale

  44. The question is not whether or not she is smart and competent.

    The question is whether or not she is a fanatic and a racial revanchist.

    Like all others of her cohort and type, she is a fanatic and a racial revanchist.

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Bingo!

  45. In a Gene Hackman movie, Hackman is asked, How do you resist her? Hackman replies: Before we could have a conversation about anything, I would have to fill her in on it first. Whatever Ketanji’s legal ability might be to read a line of cases closely, (probably good, but not great), my guess is that, extra-legally, she falls into the Hackman formulation. And, in my imaginary date with student Ketanji, when I do try to fill her in on something, gently, carefully, her justice is swift and her mercy slight.

  46. anon[133] • Disclaimer says:
    @Wade Hampton
    @Achmed E. Newman

    With all due respect to the sensitive artiste, the only reason to listen to this stuff is the lap steel guitar of David Lindley. This is apodictically true.

    Still the sensitive artiste did raise Mr. Dave to national attention so he does deserve credit for that. Here are Dave and Bonnie Raitt doing one of the artiste's tunes for a tribute album, 50 years on.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoA_f7H-g1Y

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @anon

    Being a sensitive singer/songwriter was the style then and Jackson was better than most. But I’ll agree, the stuff sounds weird now (I went back just now and listened to some of it).

    But the thing that stands out for me is what a bad singer he was (and maybe still is …….. haven’t listened for a while). He seemed incapable of moving off a general shrill-ish tone in many songs. Some he did alright, though.

  47. [MORE]

    • LOL: Almost Missouri
  48. Anon[199] • Disclaimer says:

    The race disparity in talent is particularly glaring in the practice of law because much of it is so dependent on raw brainpower.

    There’s a multiplier effect in professions like law. Big law pays \$170,000 a year right out of law school, But it also requires 60 to 80 hours per week of hard work. Smart blacks are in such demand that they can find more enjoyable jobs that only require 40 hours a week for the same pay.

    • Agree: The Anti-Gnostic
    • Replies: @Herp McDerp
    @Anon

    Smart blacks are in such demand that they can find more enjoyable jobs that only require 40 hours a week for the same pay.

    They don't even have to be particularly smart, they just have to not be stupid. "Stupid" defined here as:
    * Achieving ignorance and ineptitude in school, or just dropping out
    * Not being able to communicate in Standard American English
    * Becoming addicted to drugs
    * Being convicted as an adult of a felony
    * Not becoming an unsupported single parent
    * Pissing off people who could advance their careers
    Some of the actually smart ones can become successful even if they run afoul of one or more of those points.

  49. Slightly OT:

    The topic of my latest talk is sincerity in the comments. I feel like there has been a lot of dishonesty posted here and I wanted to address it. Many thanks to Dumbo, RSDB, Red Pill Angel, Bras Cubas, Mike Tre, Almost Missouri, Paperback Writer, and Kratoklastes for all being commenters I have interacted with positively in the past.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Thanks for the favorable mention. I will try to watch the video this weekend. Since I'm locked out from commenting at YouTube, if I have a comment, I'll post it here.

  50. It is illuminating to speculate upon what the press reaction might be to a Republican president agreeing to a key GOP congressman’s demand that he nominate only a South Carolinian…

    The LSAT is currently scored on a 120 to 180 bell curve scale, with a standard deviation of around 10. At Yale law school, the 25th percentile scores 170, the median 173, and the 75th percentile 176.

    What are the figures for Gamecocks? Clement Haynsworth’s Gamecocks! Remember Haynsworth? He and G Harold Carswell were rejected, and we got Harry Blackmun and Roe v Wade instead. How many law students fell to Roe?

    I was going to ask about figures at Grambling, but see that they outsource their legal eagles to Iowa.

    drawing-and-quartering

    The only American known to be hanged, drawn, and quartered on this side of the ocean was Joshua Tefft, for fighting on the other side in King Philip’s War. (Philip got the same treatment, but wasn’t exactly an American.)

    Ketanji Brown Jackson = Known Satanic jerk-job.

    An analyst sent me a Monte Carlo simulation

    You could wet these simulations and stick them to the wall.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Reg Cæsar

    Can you please provide the link to the study?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    , @TontoBubbaGoldstein
    @Reg Cæsar

    What are the figures for Gamecocks? Clement Haynsworth’s Gamecocks!

    Not Gamecocks. Paladins.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  51. https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/politics/jackson-luttig-endorsement/index.html


    [MORE]

    (CNN)The Biden White House is getting a major endorsement for Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson from a prominent conservative.

    In a statement obtained exclusively by CNN, retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig, considered a luminary in conservative legal circles, enthusiastically endorsed Jackson, describing her as a candidate who is “eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States.”

    “Indeed, she is as highly credentialed and experienced in the law as any nominee in history, having graduated from the Harvard Law School with honors, clerked at the Supreme Court, and served as a Federal Judge for almost a decade.” Luttig added.

    […]
    In his statement of support for Jackson, Luttig called for bipartisan support, writing that, “Republicans and Democrats alike should give their studied advice — and then their consent — to the President’s nomination of Judge Jackson.”

    “Republicans, in ​particular,” wrote Luttig, “should vote to confirm Judge Jackson.”

    Luttig also expressed his support for Biden’s campaign promise that he would nominate the court’s first Black woman, saying that Republicans had been wrong to criticize the pledge.

    “The President knew at the time that there were any number of highly qualified black women on the lower federal courts from among whom he could choose — including Judge Jackson — and Republicans should have known that the President would nominate one of those supremely qualified black women to succeed Justice Breyer,” he said.

    Noting the court’s 6-3 conservative majority, Luttig called on Republicans “to confirm Judge Jackson out of political calculation, even if they cannot bring themselves to confirm her out of political magnanimity, and then proudly take the deserved credit for their part in elevating the first black female jurist to the Supreme Court of the United States.”

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    @MEH 0910

    Michael Luttig -- general counsel of Boeing when they designed, built, lied about to get certification, crashed, lied about to keep it flying and then crashed again the 737 MAX.

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    , @Jack D
    @MEH 0910

    I think that the days when Justices could be confirmed just for being "eminently qualified" are over. They ended when the Democrats started to assassinate the character of Republican nominees who were also eminently qualified based solely on their political views, not on their qualifications. Was not Kavanaugh "eminently qualified"? And yet Democrats turned his confirmation into a circus that turned upon things that he had allegedly done as a teenager, when they never would have done the same for a liberal. So they have no right to expect to be treated any differently.

    That being said, I agree that there's not much to be gained politically by opposing Jackson. It's not going to change the outcome of the vote or the balance of the court. But fair play dictates that the Republicans treat her no better than Democrats treat "eminently qualified" Republican nominees. I wish we could go back to the days of comity but any fair treatment of Jackson will not be rewarded in the future by Democrats.

    But OTOH, the optics of beating up a black woman because she smoked a joint in high school or something like that would not be good. It would hurt Republicans more than it would hurt her. Maybe this is a double standard but that's the reality.

    Replies: @Rob Lee, @Kylie, @Meretricious, @Nicholas Stix, @Corvinus

    , @Abolish_public_education
    @MEH 0910

    she is as highly credentialed [blah blah blah] .. Luttig added

    "She comes with rarified, academic credentials. Like I do.
    She has devoted herself, with great distinction, to selflessly serving our august profession and this great nation. As I have.
    So of course there are none better."

    Pathetic.

    @#61

    It is altered slightly to make it conform to the 14th Amendment

    The government is not supposed to be carving out loopholes for itself. That sort of tax-funded lawyering makes a mockery of the principle of limited government.

  52. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    OT: Trannies are totally normal.

    https://nypost.com/2022/03/09/serial-killer-83-eyed-in-case-of-dismembered-body-found-in-nyc/

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    OT: Trannies are totally normal.

    Harvey Marcelin = Rename chivalry!

    • LOL: Bardon Kaldian
  53. @JohnnyD
    According to Wikipedia, Judge Jackson's husband is a "Boston Brahmin." Mr. and Mrs. Jackson might have to convert to Catholicism or Judaism before the confirmation hearings.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

    The meaning of the term “Boston Brahmin” has changed.

    Now it just means a dot/pajeet who lives in Back Bay and has taken your job.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    The meaning of the term “Boston Brahmin” has changed.

    Now it just means a dot/pajeet college student, who lives in one of the many Back Bay apartments that area colleges now own, and has taken your kid's place at the university.

    FIFY

  54. @Jack D
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Maybe 90% of what the Supreme Ct. does has no political dimension - patent cases and water right disputes between states and so on.

    It's true that their votes in matters with political dimensions are highly predictable but it's short of 100%. Even in the political cases, although the outcomes are somewhat predictable, their reasoning is quite elaborate and intellectually sound (notwithstanding that it's possible to reach an exactly opposite conclusion reasoning from the same facts). In order for this to work well, it requires a fine legal mind and we have been lucky that most of the Justices have such minds. Putting hacks on there of either political persuasion would not work as well for our country.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @AndrewR, @bomag

    ven in the political cases, although the outcomes are somewhat predictable, their reasoning is quite elaborate and intellectually sound

    It’s quite elaborate because it’s not intellectually sound. Con law is a complete cluster because bored Justices want to be social engineers.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
    @The Anti-Gnostic

    Con law is rooted in social engineering. That’s a feature, not a bug

  55. @Conflicted Barrister
    Steve, I was all ready to barge in here and defend how much work being a public defender is (I am a decade into a career at a large west coast metro office with lots of resources and I would consider myself an expert in complex forensic mental health homicides and definitely worked a ton more than I wanted to with small kids), but then I saw she was an appellate public defender in the DC federal office.

    Yeah, they have a big caseload, but appellate work is much much more laid back then complex trial felony work

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    Your clients are archaic humans who simply cannot function in advanced technological society. You may as well be defending baboons.

    • Agree: Pixo
  56. @Batman
    I'm always skeptical of extreme outlier smart lawyers. With a 145 IQ, you could have been a dermatologist who makes more money and actually makes lives better. Instead you decided to enter a terrible profession with terrible job satisfaction. Most days you're leaving the world net even, and many days you're making the world worse.

    What character flaws convince these people to do this?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Kaz, @pirelli, @Achmed E. Newman, @R.G. Camara, @Servant of Gla'aki, @Mike Tre

    What character flaws convince these people to do this?

    Sociopathy and hating science class.

  57. @Jack D
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Maybe 90% of what the Supreme Ct. does has no political dimension - patent cases and water right disputes between states and so on.

    It's true that their votes in matters with political dimensions are highly predictable but it's short of 100%. Even in the political cases, although the outcomes are somewhat predictable, their reasoning is quite elaborate and intellectually sound (notwithstanding that it's possible to reach an exactly opposite conclusion reasoning from the same facts). In order for this to work well, it requires a fine legal mind and we have been lucky that most of the Justices have such minds. Putting hacks on there of either political persuasion would not work as well for our country.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @AndrewR, @bomag

    Water rights aren’t political? Holy smokes, you are a clown.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @AndrewR

    They are not political in the sense that they do not fall on any recognizable Left-Right spectrum. How the justices will vote on whether the water from Aquifer A belongs to State B or State C does not depend on whether they are conservative or liberal. For example, here is a recent case that was unanimous:

    https://www.enr.com/articles/53107-us-supreme-court-sets-precedent-in-states-groundwater-dispute#:~:text=US%20Supreme%20Court%20Sets%20Precedent%20in%20States'%20Groundwater%20Dispute,-Long%20Mississippi%2DTennessee&text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20unanimously,others%2C%20with%20justices%20ruling%20Nov.

    Kagan and Thomas may disagree about many things but they had no problem being on the same side of this vote.

    And please skip the gratuitous personal insults. I did not call you stupid for not understanding my point.

  58. @Anon

    The race disparity in talent is particularly glaring in the practice of law because much of it is so dependent on raw brainpower.
     
    There’s a multiplier effect in professions like law. Big law pays $170,000 a year right out of law school, But it also requires 60 to 80 hours per week of hard work. Smart blacks are in such demand that they can find more enjoyable jobs that only require 40 hours a week for the same pay.

    Replies: @Herp McDerp

    Smart blacks are in such demand that they can find more enjoyable jobs that only require 40 hours a week for the same pay.

    They don’t even have to be particularly smart, they just have to not be stupid. “Stupid” defined here as:
    * Achieving ignorance and ineptitude in school, or just dropping out
    * Not being able to communicate in Standard American English
    * Becoming addicted to drugs
    * Being convicted as an adult of a felony
    * Not becoming an unsupported single parent
    * Pissing off people who could advance their careers
    Some of the actually smart ones can become successful even if they run afoul of one or more of those points.

  59. @Dr. X
    Aaaaaad... another justice from Harvard.

    With all this talk about "diversity," you'd think you'd get a justice or two from SMU or BYU. But noooo. No matter what their melanin level or estrogen count is, it's all Harvard-Yale, Harvard-Yale.

    Funny how that works.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @NOTA

    It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.

  60. @pirelli
    @Batman

    I’ve never taken an IQ test, but I got a 172 on my LSAT (without taking a prep course) so would guess my IQ is in the neighborhood of 140. I never considered becoming a doctor. Hospitals depress the living hell out of me. Plus, although I always did well enough in math and science, I enjoyed English, History, and Foreign Language much, much more.

    Medicine isn’t for everyone with a high IQ, nor for that matter are finance or consulting. I think the law appeals to slightly neurotic people with high verbal IQ. Also probably appeals somewhat more to “intellectual” types than any of those other professions, though the idea of the law as “the last learned profession” is mostly a mirage. It certainly appeals to academically inclined people who like to think they have a talent for public speaking, performing, etc. (I’m calling myself out here, and sadly I very seldom get the opportunity to use my dubious skills in those areas in my career. Anyway, it pays well, and it’s not all that bad.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    think the law appeals to slightly neurotic people with high verbal IQ.

    I don’t know about the neurotic part, but it’s a good choice for those with high verbal vs. math/spatial IQ. What else are you going to do, become a journalist? Blecht.

  61. @NJ Transit Commuter
    I am not a legal expert so I have no way of knowing if Ms. Brown Jackson is qualified for the Supreme Court anyway. Does it really matter? At this point, Supreme Court Justices are simply an extension of the political system. On political matters, the Democratic appointed justices vote for the Donkeys, the Republican appointed justices vote for the Elephants. On cultural and social issues, they all vote for the officially approved Cathedral opinion. None of them pay attention to law or precedent, or if they do it’s just to make a create a superficial justification for their predetermined opinion.

    Am I being too cynical? I don’t think so.

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Jack D, @Almost Missouri

    You are correct.

    In Takimag, Steve said,

    Biden isn’t going to waste one of his precious Supreme Court nominations on some quota case who will routinely get out-argued by the other justices

    It is kind of Steve to think this way, but it doesn’t work like that anymore. Arguments no longer matter. Votes do: votes out of nine. What the left wants from a black woman is a reliable vote, they don’t care about her argumentative dialectic.

    The justices used to have internal debates and then speak with a relatively uniform voice publicly. Now they just have their clerks write up umpteen-page position statements, and then one party to the appeal gets slightly more signatures: that is a Supreme Court “decision”. The umpteen-page position statements don’t necessarily make any sense and often (looking at Sotomayor) are barely even parseable. But it doesn’t matter. The purpose is not to make sense, it is to serve as a mine for future back-referencing to make future novel rulings look like established “precedent”. This is how we got anchor babies without any legislator ever passing a statute for it. It is a guileful little game doing no credit to the Supreme Court whose downward arc runs parallel to the downward arc of every other western institution.

    Arguably, it is better for the leftist judges to be dummies, because in the unlikely event that reason, debate, and sanity are ever restored to the Capitol, the corpus of nonsensically written dumb judicial opinions can simply be ignored, whereas when dire opinions are written by an able dialectician, like Ginsburg, they require more laborious overruling.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Almost Missouri

    Agreed, A.M., except for:


    ... and sanity are ever restored to the Capitol.
     
    Sanity will not be restored to the Capitol. Well, the Potomac Regime would have to be terminated without prejudice first.
  62. Another interesting and thoughtful column – thanks.

    Off Topic: the New York legislature has adopted a policy idea that Sailer spearheaded: offering marijuana sales licences to the Black community. It is altered slightly to make it conform to the 14th Amendment, but along the proposed lines. I do not have the link to Sailer’s columns but he mentioned this idea approvingly several times in various columns.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/09/nyregion/marijuana-sellers-licenses-hochul.html

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    @Peter Johnson

    The weed-selling licenses will first be offered to people with marijuana convictions. No, I am not kidding.

  63. @Achmed E. Newman
    Why is anyone discussing whether Affirmative Action is Constitutional? You'd have to be a moron or a liar to say it is.

    As much as I don't think much of any of the SCROTUS judges other than Clarence Thomas, all of them can read well enough to see that there's nothing in the Constitution or any of its Amendments, even the worst of them, to allow AA. The Feral Gov't should have no say in the matter to begin with per Amendment X, which is one sentence long! So, we've had, and we've got, a bunch of robed liars.

    Therefore, we know it's all political, as the guy from New Jersey already explained. Why would we need the best and brightest, Steve? It's a worthless endeavor to worry about it, unless you think US Constitution 2.0, the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s, will be thrown out before some of these people die.

    Since I mentioned Clarance Thomas, he goes to show you that, even the very few who care about the US Constitution don't need to be some stars with the best LSATs. They just need to be men of integrity. There aren't many.

    Replies: @Hypnotoad666

    Why is anyone discussing whether Affirmative Action is Constitutional? You’d have to be a moron or a liar to say it is.

    The Suprem Court has made itself an intellectual laughing stock for 50 years by inventing preposterous rationales to uphold the practice. (E.g., the “benefits of ‘diversity’ are so axiomatic they trump ‘equal protection’ under law.”) But everytime it should have been killed, the 5th vote looses his/her nerve. With Kavanaugh and Barett, there may now be six votes to invoke Robert’s dictum that “the best way to stop racial discrimination is to stop discriminating by race.”

  64. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Batman


    What character flaws convince these people to do this?
     
    It's only 2 anecdotes, but out of 2 lawyers I've know that were more than acquaintances, both had real character flaws to the point of my wondering if there was a term from psychology to describe it.

    What I wondered is if it was law school or their lawyer work that made them this way or if they became lawyers because of their weird properties.

    As for medicine, I could have done that, as a number of friends did. It's not the blood and guts that I don't like - I even went down to the basement and saw my friend's cadaver - she was a young lady who'd been struck by lightening, and my friend sort of had a crush on her. Anyway, what I don't like is thinking about all the ways the human body can screw up. It's amazing we're all here at all!

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @AnotherDad

    character flaw

    my friend’s cadaver – she was a young lady who’d been struck by [lightning], and my friend sort of had a crush on her

    Lol.

    (Alternatively, if you really did mean that she had died from being struck by “lightening”, does this explain why transracialism is not a thing? But what does it say about your friend: had a crush on a dead lightened woman that he wouldn’t have had on her pre-lightening and pre-death? Or did he already have the crush when the light[e]ning struck?)

    • LOL: Achmed E. Newman
  65. @Achmed E. Newman
    Instead of Miss Brown Jackson, I would rather see Mr. Jackson Brown up there, who at least understood "It takes a clear mind to MAKE it." At least I THINK he was mumbling about Supreme Court decision making, but it was hard to tell there in the back of the bus.

    From a different album:

    Doctor, my eyes, tell me what is wrong.
    Was I unwise to leave them open for so long ...


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqoI65z-jo

    Holy Moley, that was 50 years ago!!

    Replies: @Wade Hampton, @danand, @the one they call Desanex, @cityview, @Reg Cæsar

    “…there in the back of the bus”

    To hear Tiger Woods tell it yesterday at his HOF induction, back of the bus was also his plight:

    “You had to be twice as good to get half a chance (so) I made practice so hard, hurt so much, because I want to make sure I was ready come game time.

    “I was not allowed into the clubhouses. The colour of my skin dictated that … As I got older that drove me even more.”

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @danand

    Twice as good, huh? Does that mean he shoots 1 1/2 average on all the par-3 holes? Colour me impressed.

  66. @nebulafox
    In other news:

    https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1501205118775087110

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1501209395681808385

    Make no mistake when you worry about affording food or transportation soon: they hate you.

    Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin, @AnotherDad

    I cannot see pictures of Brandon and “Dr.” Jill without recalling Nicolaeu and Elena Ceauçescu, another couple of schlubs caught in a maelstrom of events and circumstances beyond their control.

    May Brandon safely retire soon to his cozy basement, where he may spend the remainder of his days free from the prying eyes of the world, happily gumming bowlfuls of cold oatmeal.

  67. @Joe Stalin
    @J.Ross

    https://twitter.com/RWApodcast/status/1501653976160342020?cxt=HHwWiMC4ibqV-dYpAAAA

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L92R95-v2Jw

    Guess Ukraine will make every Russkie soldier wary of being there at Putin's initiative.

    Running Russkie dead body toll figures by org.


    The Russians are reportedly using mobile crematoriums to "incinerate dead soldiers" amid fears Putin is trying to hide the scale of his war.

    Ukrainian authorities claim that more than 11,000 Russian troops have been killed since the Kremlin's invasion, but this figure has not been independently verified.

    https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/russia-refuses-take-back-dead-soldiers-ukraine/
     

    U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that between 2,000 and 4,000 Russian soldiers have been killed in the two-week invasion of Ukraine — possibly more than the number of Americans killed in the 20-year war in Afghanistan.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/us-intel-agencies-russia-not-want-engage-directly-us-military-rcna19128

     


    Ukrainian sources say Russia has lost 11,000 troops but verifiable sources put the figure closer to 10,000, according to Prof Clarke.

    https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-lost-equipment-casualties-and-communication-failures-how-the-russian-military-is-faring-in-ukraine-12561267

     

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    U.S. intelligence agencies estimate that between 2,000 and 4,000 Russian soldiers have been killed in the two-week invasion of Ukraine — possibly more than the number of Americans killed in the 20-year war in Afghanistan.

    It is not widely understood, even by US intelligence agencies apparently, that the Afghan War was something of an off-balance sheet war. Deploying soldiers as “contractors” meant that when they got killed they weren’t added to the embarrassing “military dead” category. And they got killed a lot. Per Wiki, 2420 US military dead but 3937 contractor dead. Not all the contractors were American, but most probably were. That total is about the same as, or perhaps more than, the US dead in Iraq. But most of the troops in Afghanistan were there at Obama’s behest rather than Bush’s behest, so the global media didn’t care.

  68. @Achmed E. Newman
    Instead of Miss Brown Jackson, I would rather see Mr. Jackson Brown up there, who at least understood "It takes a clear mind to MAKE it." At least I THINK he was mumbling about Supreme Court decision making, but it was hard to tell there in the back of the bus.

    From a different album:

    Doctor, my eyes, tell me what is wrong.
    Was I unwise to leave them open for so long ...


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqoI65z-jo

    Holy Moley, that was 50 years ago!!

    Replies: @Wade Hampton, @danand, @the one they call Desanex, @cityview, @Reg Cæsar

    I know what was wrong with his eyes. He had hair in them! Jackson Browne’s haircut reminds me of this:

  69. Black Judge Ketanji Onyika Brown Jackson =
    Jackson: Wonky, jet-black brainiak judge (no)

  70. @Mike Tre
    @Buffalo Joe

    4chan would hack them and send them all off the nearest bridge.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    This comment was approved before another comment I made still waiting moderation, listed as comment #2. The truth hurts, I suppose.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Mike Tre

    This one is approved, but not the original from yesterday.

    , @TheJester
    @Mike Tre

    iSteve rarely drops a comment because (I speculate) he is judged by his superiors on the aggregate number of comments he receives for a given blog posting. It's a popularity contest.

    iSteve does what the MSM does: he posts what he considers dodgy content in the inside pages that are rarely read. I've had postings pop up days after I posted them ... never lost but rarely read by most of the commentariat.

  71. @Mike Tre
    @Mike Tre

    This comment was approved before another comment I made still waiting moderation, listed as comment #2. The truth hurts, I suppose.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @TheJester

    This one is approved, but not the original from yesterday.

  72. @Achmed E. Newman
    Instead of Miss Brown Jackson, I would rather see Mr. Jackson Brown up there, who at least understood "It takes a clear mind to MAKE it." At least I THINK he was mumbling about Supreme Court decision making, but it was hard to tell there in the back of the bus.

    From a different album:

    Doctor, my eyes, tell me what is wrong.
    Was I unwise to leave them open for so long ...


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqoI65z-jo

    Holy Moley, that was 50 years ago!!

    Replies: @Wade Hampton, @danand, @the one they call Desanex, @cityview, @Reg Cæsar

    Jackson Browne. But “it takes a clear mind …” was accompanist David Lindley.

    From Running On Empty: “but the only time that seems too short is the time that we get to play …”

  73. What does this beautiful lady’s first name, Ketanji, mean?

  74. @ytcarl
    Steve wrote:

    "But the meat and potatoes of lawyering—writing contracts—is basically a medieval form of coding. Your job is to anticipate what could go wrong in a deal and write if-then-else statements to protect your client from those eventualities."
     
    Nice!

    Replies: @Technite78

    I liked that passage too… except that the “programming language” of contracts has enough ambiguity in it to allow two opposing parties to reasonably come to different opinions of which branch an if-then-else statement should actually be chosen.

    I’ve been involved in arbitration over a bond prospectus (a form of legal contract)… in which there were two mutually exclusive ways of interpreting the cash flows to various tranches of the obligation. That was a result of it being poorly written, but it’s just as possible to intentionally create ambiguous language in legal contract… so that each party to the contract can interpret the text in a way that is advantageous to themselves.

    Most software developers consider code that results in ambiguous execution to be faulty; in contract law ambiguity can be seen as job security.

  75. The libertarian in me thinks that private universities and private companies should be able to hire based on race if they want. But that would imply permitting the hiring of only whites, which we know is deemed unacceptable in today’s minority-worshipping America.

  76. @Almost Missouri
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    You are correct.

    In Takimag, Steve said,


    Biden isn’t going to waste one of his precious Supreme Court nominations on some quota case who will routinely get out-argued by the other justices
     
    It is kind of Steve to think this way, but it doesn’t work like that anymore. Arguments no longer matter. Votes do: votes out of nine. What the left wants from a black woman is a reliable vote, they don’t care about her argumentative dialectic.

    The justices used to have internal debates and then speak with a relatively uniform voice publicly. Now they just have their clerks write up umpteen-page position statements, and then one party to the appeal gets slightly more signatures: that is a Supreme Court “decision”. The umpteen-page position statements don’t necessarily make any sense and often (looking at Sotomayor) are barely even parseable. But it doesn’t matter. The purpose is not to make sense, it is to serve as a mine for future back-referencing to make future novel rulings look like established “precedent”. This is how we got anchor babies without any legislator ever passing a statute for it. It is a guileful little game doing no credit to the Supreme Court whose downward arc runs parallel to the downward arc of every other western institution.

    Arguably, it is better for the leftist judges to be dummies, because in the unlikely event that reason, debate, and sanity are ever restored to the Capitol, the corpus of nonsensically written dumb judicial opinions can simply be ignored, whereas when dire opinions are written by an able dialectician, like Ginsburg, they require more laborious overruling.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Agreed, A.M., except for:

    … and sanity are ever restored to the Capitol.

    Sanity will not be restored to the Capitol. Well, the Potomac Regime would have to be terminated without prejudice first.

  77. @danand
    @Achmed E. Newman

    "...there in the back of the bus"

    To hear Tiger Woods tell it yesterday at his HOF induction, back of the bus was also his plight:



    "You had to be twice as good to get half a chance (so) I made practice so hard, hurt so much, because I want to make sure I was ready come game time.

    "I was not allowed into the clubhouses. The colour of my skin dictated that ... As I got older that drove me even more."
     

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Twice as good, huh? Does that mean he shoots 1 1/2 average on all the par-3 holes? Colour me impressed.

  78. In general, she seems like a nice lady, slightly less pathologically ambitious than the typical Supreme Court nominee.

    Based on her resume, Jackson is superbly qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. She is even related to Oliver Wendell Holmes by marriage, and, like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, she was born in Washington, DC.

    She is certainly better qualified and knowledgeable than Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh could not even a basic question about the intoxicating effects of beer, or on blood alcohol levels.

    Interview questions that the Senate might want to consider are:

    1. Have you ever had an abortion?

    2. What is your favorite kind of beer?

    3. How do you like Washington so far?

    4. Does affirmative action work?

    5. What are your pronouns?

    6. Who shot JFK?

    7. Do you have any family members on the payroll of Russian or Ukrainian oligarchs.

    8. How do you feel about judges taking bribes?

    9. Are you soft on crime?

    10. Name the current President of Barbados.

    11. Where did Covid-19 come from?

    12. Can a vice-president nullify a presidential election on a whim?

    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    @Jonathan Mason


    Jackson is superbly qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. She is even related to Oliver Wendell Holmes by marriage.
     
    You have a genius for satire!

    Keep it up!
  79. At VDARE, “Federale” analyzes KBJ’s anti-Trump ruling in an immigration case. KJB’s ruling is 100% lawless bullshit, completely ignoring the clear language of the law in question and instead basing her ruling on nonsense about the “lived experiences” of illegal aliens (whom she refers to as “non-citizens”).

    Affirmative-Action SCOTUS Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson Is A Kritarch Of The Worst Order

    https://vdare.com/posts/affirmative-action-scotus-nominee-ketanji-brown-jackson-is-a-kritarch-of-the-worst-order

    • Thanks: Achmed E. Newman
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Calvin Hobbes

    I read that one when it got posted, Calvin, but my thanks is for your reading VDare.

  80. Speaking of top-end affirmative action hires, the head of Yale Law School’s new Law and Racial Justice Center needs a Spring Break trip to the beach before his next photo-shoot, in order to top up his suntan and keep his Black bona fides:

    https://news.yale.edu/2022/03/03/new-yale-center-fight-racial-justice-begins-locally?utm_source=YaleToday&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=YT_Yale%20Today%20Alum%20no%20Parents_3-10-2022

    • LOL: Calvin Hobbes
    • Replies: @Calvin Hobbes
    @Peter Johnson

    From your linked article:


    Vinson: Schools are creating outcomes, they're not just manifesting them. As a student I saw how that impacted friends. I had a good friend in high school who was involved in the justice system. He was determined to get a high school diploma — he would be the first in his family to graduate from high school. But during our senior year, because he spent some time in a juvenile detention center, the school waited until right before graduation to tell him that even though he had earned all his credits, done all the work, he had simply had too many absences. So he was not going to get his high school diploma. To me, for adults to think that that was an OK outcome for a 17-year-old Black boy who really had done everything he could to get his high school diploma, I just didn’t understand. And I wanted to understand, how did we get here? How do we become this sort of society?
     
    This friend was “involved in the justice system”. The friend “spent some time in a juvenile detention center”, I’m sure through no fault of his own. And he “had done everything he could to get his high school diploma” (aside from his criminal activities).

    These people are hilarious. Unfortunately, they’re treated as though they were serious people and not like the buffoons they are.
  81. McWhorter starts this talking about how black academics can be high-status celebrities without much in the way of serious achievements.

    At 3:08, Loury starts talking about Lisa Cook’s nomination to the Fed, mentioning that some people regard her big paper on black patents as “fatally flawed” (and the paper is not just fatally flawed but a total fiasco, as Steve has shown) and that her credentials just don’t compare with those of typical Fed members.

    Starting at 7:50, Loury says that Biden’s SC nominee should be a one of the top legal scholars on the left, and that it’s quite possible that none of the people like that is a black woman. (And of course the LSAT data suggests that it’s unlikely that there is a black woman of that caliber, but Loury does not mention that.)

  82. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @JohnnyD

    The meaning of the term "Boston Brahmin" has changed.

    Now it just means a dot/pajeet who lives in Back Bay and has taken your job.

    Replies: @Brutusale

    The meaning of the term “Boston Brahmin” has changed.

    Now it just means a dot/pajeet college student, who lives in one of the many Back Bay apartments that area colleges now own, and has taken your kid’s place at the university.

    FIFY

  83. @MEH 0910
    https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/politics/jackson-luttig-endorsement/index.html
    https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1498356095110287360

    (CNN)The Biden White House is getting a major endorsement for Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson from a prominent conservative.

    In a statement obtained exclusively by CNN, retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig, considered a luminary in conservative legal circles, enthusiastically endorsed Jackson, describing her as a candidate who is "eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States."

    "Indeed, she is as highly credentialed and experienced in the law as any nominee in history, having graduated from the Harvard Law School with honors, clerked at the Supreme Court, and served as a Federal Judge for almost a decade." Luttig added.

    [...]
    In his statement of support for Jackson, Luttig called for bipartisan support, writing that, "Republicans and Democrats alike should give their studied advice -- and then their consent -- to the President's nomination of Judge Jackson."

    "Republicans, in ​particular," wrote Luttig, "should vote to confirm Judge Jackson."

    Luttig also expressed his support for Biden's campaign promise that he would nominate the court's first Black woman, saying that Republicans had been wrong to criticize the pledge.

    "The President knew at the time that there were any number of highly qualified black women on the lower federal courts from among whom he could choose -- including Judge Jackson -- and Republicans should have known that the President would nominate one of those supremely qualified black women to succeed Justice Breyer," he said.

    Noting the court's 6-3 conservative majority, Luttig called on Republicans "to confirm Judge Jackson out of political calculation, even if they cannot bring themselves to confirm her out of political magnanimity, and then proudly take the deserved credit for their part in elevating the first black female jurist to the Supreme Court of the United States."
     

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Jack D, @Abolish_public_education

    Michael Luttig — general counsel of Boeing when they designed, built, lied about to get certification, crashed, lied about to keep it flying and then crashed again the 737 MAX.

    • Thanks: Ben tillman
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    @AnotherDad

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Luttig#Resignation


    In May 2006, Luttig resigned to become general counsel and senior vice president for The Boeing Company.[24][25] He replaced Douglas Bain.[26] In his resignation letter, Luttig wrote, "Boeing may well be the only company in America for which I would have ever considered leaving the court."[27] He also mentioned his two children's upcoming college education; the position at Boeing promised more pay than the federal judgeship. At the time of his resignation, federal appellate judges were paid $175,100 annually.[28] According to Boeing's 2008 Annual Report, Luttig's total compensation for 2008 was $2,798,962.[29] Luttig resigned as general counsel to Boeing in May 2019. He was replaced by Brett Gerry.[30] Luttig's resignation coincided with the terminations of former CEO Dennis Muillenberg and former Commercial Aircraft Executive Kevin McCallister that year, during the Boeing 737 MAX groundings crisis.[31]
     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Luttig#Father's_murder

    Luttig's father, John Luttig, was fatally shot in 1994 in a carjacking by Napoleon Beazley, who, at the time of the crime, was a seventeen-year-old minor.[16] Luttig testified in the sentencing portion of the trial, providing testimony supporting imposition of the death penalty.[16] Beazley was convicted, condemned to death, and eventually executed after twice appealing to the Supreme Court,[17][18] where Justices Antonin Scalia, David Souter, and Clarence Thomas recused themselves because of past associations with Luttig. Scalia recused himself because Luttig had clerked for him, and Justices David Souter and Clarence Thomas recused themselves because Luttig led the George H. W. Bush Administration's efforts to gain the Senate's confirmation for them.[19]
     
    https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/does-napoleon-beazley-deserve-to-die/

    On April 19, 1994, the day that seventeen-year-old Napoleon Beazley committed cold-blooded murder, the high school senior came home from track practice, showered, and changed into a fresh pair of blue jeans. At that moment, just before he loaded his Haskell .45-caliber semi-automatic pistol and tucked it into his pants, the future held more promise for Napoleon than it had for generations of Beazleys before him, who had made a modest living raising peanuts and cotton near the East Texas town of Grapeland. Napoleon was the president of his senior class and a star athlete, a bright teenager with a loose-limbed confidence and a dazzling smile who had just been voted runner-up for the title of Mr. Grapeland High School. He didn’t drink; he didn’t smoke; he went to church on Sunday. He was an honor student and hoped to attend Stanford Law School someday. But for a light-skinned black teenager mocked by his black peers for acting “too white,” success was not always a blessing. Ambition kindled resentment on the rutted roads south of Chestnut Street, where sagging frame houses have gone to seed and young men idle under shade trees and stray dogs root around for bones. Here, the pistol lent him the hard-edged, cocksure certainty that no scholarship or touchdown could ever provide.

    That night, Napoleon left Grapeland with two small-time hoods, brothers Cedrick and Donald “Fig” Coleman. What happened next would prove to be unfathomable to those people in Grapeland, white and black, who had known Napoleon throughout his short but promising life. He and the Coleman brothers headed first for Corsicana, then for Tyler, an hour’s drive north of Grapeland, looking for a vehicle to carjack. Around eleven o’clock they caught sight of a cream-colored Mercedes-Benz, which they began to tail through a residential neighborhood of large, cantilevered houses and manicured lawns. Inside the Mercedes, Bobbie Luttig sensed that she and her husband of 41 years, independent oilman John Luttig, were being followed.

    As John Luttig drove into their garage, Napoleon darted up the Luttigs’ winding driveway, his pistol drawn. Fig Coleman strode behind him, holding a sawed-off shotgun, while Cedrick waited in the car. No doubt John Luttig would have peacefully handed over the keys to his Mercedes, but he never had the chance. As he stepped out of the car, Bobbie heard him utter one word—”No!”—and then saw the flash of a gun muzzle. John Luttig fell to his knees, struck by a bullet that had grazed his head. Napoleon then fired at Bobbie. Though the shot missed its mark, she sank, terror-stricken, to the garage floor and played dead, her face pressed against the oil-stained cement. Her husband was still alive, kneeling beside the car in shock. Napoleon leaned over the bleeding man and pulled the trigger again. Bobbie kept still, her eyes shut, as her husband’s blood coursed down the driveway. Only after the Mercedes skidded away did she dare move, racing to a neighbor’s house and telling the 911 dispatcher, “My husband has been shot. Please hurry!”

    “Carjackers Kill Tyler Civic Leader Luttig,” the headlines read the next day. “Friends Astounded By Brutal Act.” What set this crime apart was not its depravity, or its casual violence, or its utter senselessness but its power to stir deeply divided emotions—in Grapeland, in Tyler, even in the highest echelons of jurisprudence, all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Napoleon Beazley was not just any murderer, and John Luttig was not just any victim. Napoleon was a minor at the time of his crime, and his case inevitably raised the question of whether even a vicious killer can be too young to be sentenced to death. John Luttig was not only a prominent white citizen in Tyler but also the father of the Honorable J. Michael Luttig, a federal judge who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and is believed to be on President Bush’s short list for potential Supreme Court nominees. Judge Luttig asked that “those who committed this brutal crime receive the full punishment that the law provides.” A Smith County jury later sentenced Napoleon to death.
     

    Replies: @Jack D

  84. Steve, your column assumes that the Justices do most of the work. But most of the work is actually done by their four clerks, all super-intelligent and super-industrious. The clerks are just out of law school and generally assume that what their professors (almost all well left of center) said was the way the law should be. They do almost all of the initial researching and often write drafts of potential opinions. They are one reason Republican-nominated justices move left.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  85. I was a little bit confused when you switched between Judge Brown Jackson and Judge Jackson Brown… Did she write “Take it Easy” for the Eagles?

    Anyway, I thought it was fun that

    “Across the country, there would annually be about 1,000 white men scoring 170 or higher compared with 550 white women.”

    One of the most securely hidden facts about IQ is that, for every woman with an IQ of 130, there are two men, so this seems reasonable to me. Even though the LSAT is not an IQ test, a 170 on the LSAT apparently corresponds to about a 133 IQ.

  86. @Hypnotoad666
    @Jack D


    the Supreme Ct. is not mean to consist of the 9 highest scoring LSAT takers in America.
     
    I totally agree. All the talk about being smart misses the point that what you really want from a judge is . . . good judgment.

    The reason that doesn't enter the debate much is probably because: (a) it's intangible; and (b) it tends to blow up the myth that the SCOTUS justices just "call balls and strikes" using their big brains rather than making policy and political judgments.

    Replies: @Seneca44

    Another not unexpected side effect of AA is that it calls into question the qualifications of even the best candidates. Even if Ms. Brown Jackson were absolutely the best constitutional scholar and judge in the US, someone would always wonder if she got there via a racial spoils system.

    • Agree: Spud Boy
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Seneca44


    Even if Ms. Brown Jackson were absolutely the best constitutional scholar and judge in the US, someone would always wonder if she got there via a racial spoils system.
     
    I wondered the same thing about every black person I worked with. Fortunately, STEM weeds out most complete dullards because everyone is expected to produce some amount of workable code.
  87. @AndrewR
    @Jack D

    Water rights aren't political? Holy smokes, you are a clown.

    Replies: @Jack D

    They are not political in the sense that they do not fall on any recognizable Left-Right spectrum. How the justices will vote on whether the water from Aquifer A belongs to State B or State C does not depend on whether they are conservative or liberal. For example, here is a recent case that was unanimous:

    https://www.enr.com/articles/53107-us-supreme-court-sets-precedent-in-states-groundwater-dispute#:~:text=US%20Supreme%20Court%20Sets%20Precedent%20in%20States’%20Groundwater%20Dispute,-Long%20Mississippi%2DTennessee&text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20unanimously,others%2C%20with%20justices%20ruling%20Nov.

    Kagan and Thomas may disagree about many things but they had no problem being on the same side of this vote.

    And please skip the gratuitous personal insults. I did not call you stupid for not understanding my point.

  88. I forgot to ask: Was the pleasingly ambiguous hat-tip to Ebonics in “You be the Judge” – We can all imagine Kamela telling her that, yours or a Takibots?

  89. @Jonathan Mason

    In general, she seems like a nice lady, slightly less pathologically ambitious than the typical Supreme Court nominee.
     
    Based on her resume, Jackson is superbly qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. She is even related to Oliver Wendell Holmes by marriage, and, like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, she was born in Washington, DC.

    She is certainly better qualified and knowledgeable than Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh could not even a basic question about the intoxicating effects of beer, or on blood alcohol levels.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdTTjY8soVc

    Interview questions that the Senate might want to consider are:

    1. Have you ever had an abortion?

    2. What is your favorite kind of beer?

    3. How do you like Washington so far?

    4. Does affirmative action work?

    5. What are your pronouns?

    6. Who shot JFK?

    7. Do you have any family members on the payroll of Russian or Ukrainian oligarchs.

    8. How do you feel about judges taking bribes?

    9. Are you soft on crime?

    10. Name the current President of Barbados.

    11. Where did Covid-19 come from?

    12. Can a vice-president nullify a presidential election on a whim?

    Replies: @Bill Jones

    Jackson is superbly qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. She is even related to Oliver Wendell Holmes by marriage.

    You have a genius for satire!

    Keep it up!

  90. @MEH 0910
    https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/politics/jackson-luttig-endorsement/index.html
    https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1498356095110287360

    (CNN)The Biden White House is getting a major endorsement for Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson from a prominent conservative.

    In a statement obtained exclusively by CNN, retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig, considered a luminary in conservative legal circles, enthusiastically endorsed Jackson, describing her as a candidate who is "eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States."

    "Indeed, she is as highly credentialed and experienced in the law as any nominee in history, having graduated from the Harvard Law School with honors, clerked at the Supreme Court, and served as a Federal Judge for almost a decade." Luttig added.

    [...]
    In his statement of support for Jackson, Luttig called for bipartisan support, writing that, "Republicans and Democrats alike should give their studied advice -- and then their consent -- to the President's nomination of Judge Jackson."

    "Republicans, in ​particular," wrote Luttig, "should vote to confirm Judge Jackson."

    Luttig also expressed his support for Biden's campaign promise that he would nominate the court's first Black woman, saying that Republicans had been wrong to criticize the pledge.

    "The President knew at the time that there were any number of highly qualified black women on the lower federal courts from among whom he could choose -- including Judge Jackson -- and Republicans should have known that the President would nominate one of those supremely qualified black women to succeed Justice Breyer," he said.

    Noting the court's 6-3 conservative majority, Luttig called on Republicans "to confirm Judge Jackson out of political calculation, even if they cannot bring themselves to confirm her out of political magnanimity, and then proudly take the deserved credit for their part in elevating the first black female jurist to the Supreme Court of the United States."
     

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Jack D, @Abolish_public_education

    I think that the days when Justices could be confirmed just for being “eminently qualified” are over. They ended when the Democrats started to assassinate the character of Republican nominees who were also eminently qualified based solely on their political views, not on their qualifications. Was not Kavanaugh “eminently qualified”? And yet Democrats turned his confirmation into a circus that turned upon things that he had allegedly done as a teenager, when they never would have done the same for a liberal. So they have no right to expect to be treated any differently.

    That being said, I agree that there’s not much to be gained politically by opposing Jackson. It’s not going to change the outcome of the vote or the balance of the court. But fair play dictates that the Republicans treat her no better than Democrats treat “eminently qualified” Republican nominees. I wish we could go back to the days of comity but any fair treatment of Jackson will not be rewarded in the future by Democrats.

    But OTOH, the optics of beating up a black woman because she smoked a joint in high school or something like that would not be good. It would hurt Republicans more than it would hurt her. Maybe this is a double standard but that’s the reality.

    • Replies: @Rob Lee
    @Jack D

    This might be mitigated in part by the Republicans having a black conservative lead the hearings. At the end of the day, while the black community itself will 'Uncle Tom' the inquisitor, the media's teeth will be somewhat blunted by a black-on-black series of exchanges - especially if that black conservative were a female.

    But are Republicans that smart? And do any of those unicorns exist?

    , @Kylie
    @Jack D

    "I think that the days when Justices could be confirmed just for being 'eminently qualified' are over."

    Wrong. In today's America, Jackson is eminently qualified. She's female, black and leftwing. I fully expect her to be confirmed for these reasons alone.

    , @Meretricious
    @Jack D

    my prediction: after Jackson's hearing is over all of us will agree, including iSteve, that this affirmative action jurist is no more intelligent than Michelle Obama

    , @Nicholas Stix
    @Jack D

    Screw the optics, Jack. For 60 years, people right of center have worried about "optics" and "tone." What has that gotten them?

    Oh, and earlier today, I said that "Republican" is one of the worst curse words I know. You can add "conservative" to that.

    , @Corvinus
    @Jack D

    “Was not Kavanaugh “eminently qualified”?”

    No. Next question.

  91. @Kaz
    @Batman

    I say the same for people becoming doctors instead of programmers today. They better be in it for the passion otherwise they're screwed.

    Top IQ people can effortlessly pull in 300k+ before they hit 30 in programming.

    While in Medicine you don't make any money until you finish med school, residency, fellowships, etc.. and then you have to do real hard work on top of that.

    Replies: @Erik L

    Can pull that in with a bit of luck and the right job…it is hardly guaranteed. In fact I doubt the overwhelming majority of programmers, even with 145 IQ would be making that, and hardly any before 30. Those are high profile cases and usually in extremely expensive areas to live in. It is also potentially a near term phenomenon that might not last the remaining 30-40 years of a 30 year old programmer’s career

    • Agree: ScarletNumber, Spud Boy
  92. @AnotherDad
    @MEH 0910

    Michael Luttig -- general counsel of Boeing when they designed, built, lied about to get certification, crashed, lied about to keep it flying and then crashed again the 737 MAX.

    Replies: @MEH 0910

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Luttig#Resignation

    In May 2006, Luttig resigned to become general counsel and senior vice president for The Boeing Company.[24][25] He replaced Douglas Bain.[26] In his resignation letter, Luttig wrote, “Boeing may well be the only company in America for which I would have ever considered leaving the court.”[27] He also mentioned his two children’s upcoming college education; the position at Boeing promised more pay than the federal judgeship. At the time of his resignation, federal appellate judges were paid \$175,100 annually.[28] According to Boeing’s 2008 Annual Report, Luttig’s total compensation for 2008 was \$2,798,962.[29] Luttig resigned as general counsel to Boeing in May 2019. He was replaced by Brett Gerry.[30] Luttig’s resignation coincided with the terminations of former CEO Dennis Muillenberg and former Commercial Aircraft Executive Kevin McCallister that year, during the Boeing 737 MAX groundings crisis.[31]

    [MORE]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Luttig#Father’s_murder

    Luttig’s father, John Luttig, was fatally shot in 1994 in a carjacking by Napoleon Beazley, who, at the time of the crime, was a seventeen-year-old minor.[16] Luttig testified in the sentencing portion of the trial, providing testimony supporting imposition of the death penalty.[16] Beazley was convicted, condemned to death, and eventually executed after twice appealing to the Supreme Court,[17][18] where Justices Antonin Scalia, David Souter, and Clarence Thomas recused themselves because of past associations with Luttig. Scalia recused himself because Luttig had clerked for him, and Justices David Souter and Clarence Thomas recused themselves because Luttig led the George H. W. Bush Administration’s efforts to gain the Senate’s confirmation for them.[19]

    https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/does-napoleon-beazley-deserve-to-die/

    On April 19, 1994, the day that seventeen-year-old Napoleon Beazley committed cold-blooded murder, the high school senior came home from track practice, showered, and changed into a fresh pair of blue jeans. At that moment, just before he loaded his Haskell .45-caliber semi-automatic pistol and tucked it into his pants, the future held more promise for Napoleon than it had for generations of Beazleys before him, who had made a modest living raising peanuts and cotton near the East Texas town of Grapeland. Napoleon was the president of his senior class and a star athlete, a bright teenager with a loose-limbed confidence and a dazzling smile who had just been voted runner-up for the title of Mr. Grapeland High School. He didn’t drink; he didn’t smoke; he went to church on Sunday. He was an honor student and hoped to attend Stanford Law School someday. But for a light-skinned black teenager mocked by his black peers for acting “too white,” success was not always a blessing. Ambition kindled resentment on the rutted roads south of Chestnut Street, where sagging frame houses have gone to seed and young men idle under shade trees and stray dogs root around for bones. Here, the pistol lent him the hard-edged, cocksure certainty that no scholarship or touchdown could ever provide.

    That night, Napoleon left Grapeland with two small-time hoods, brothers Cedrick and Donald “Fig” Coleman. What happened next would prove to be unfathomable to those people in Grapeland, white and black, who had known Napoleon throughout his short but promising life. He and the Coleman brothers headed first for Corsicana, then for Tyler, an hour’s drive north of Grapeland, looking for a vehicle to carjack. Around eleven o’clock they caught sight of a cream-colored Mercedes-Benz, which they began to tail through a residential neighborhood of large, cantilevered houses and manicured lawns. Inside the Mercedes, Bobbie Luttig sensed that she and her husband of 41 years, independent oilman John Luttig, were being followed.

    As John Luttig drove into their garage, Napoleon darted up the Luttigs’ winding driveway, his pistol drawn. Fig Coleman strode behind him, holding a sawed-off shotgun, while Cedrick waited in the car. No doubt John Luttig would have peacefully handed over the keys to his Mercedes, but he never had the chance. As he stepped out of the car, Bobbie heard him utter one word—”No!”—and then saw the flash of a gun muzzle. John Luttig fell to his knees, struck by a bullet that had grazed his head. Napoleon then fired at Bobbie. Though the shot missed its mark, she sank, terror-stricken, to the garage floor and played dead, her face pressed against the oil-stained cement. Her husband was still alive, kneeling beside the car in shock. Napoleon leaned over the bleeding man and pulled the trigger again. Bobbie kept still, her eyes shut, as her husband’s blood coursed down the driveway. Only after the Mercedes skidded away did she dare move, racing to a neighbor’s house and telling the 911 dispatcher, “My husband has been shot. Please hurry!”

    “Carjackers Kill Tyler Civic Leader Luttig,” the headlines read the next day. “Friends Astounded By Brutal Act.” What set this crime apart was not its depravity, or its casual violence, or its utter senselessness but its power to stir deeply divided emotions—in Grapeland, in Tyler, even in the highest echelons of jurisprudence, all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Napoleon Beazley was not just any murderer, and John Luttig was not just any victim. Napoleon was a minor at the time of his crime, and his case inevitably raised the question of whether even a vicious killer can be too young to be sentenced to death. John Luttig was not only a prominent white citizen in Tyler but also the father of the Honorable J. Michael Luttig, a federal judge who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and is believed to be on President Bush’s short list for potential Supreme Court nominees. Judge Luttig asked that “those who committed this brutal crime receive the full punishment that the law provides.” A Smith County jury later sentenced Napoleon to death.

    • Thanks: Calvin Hobbes
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @MEH 0910

    Beazley just missed the boat. In 2005, the Supreme Ct. ruled (5-4) that executing murderers who were under 18 at the time of their crime was "unconstitutional". Unfortunately, this ruling could not be applied retroactively to prisoners who had already been executed.

    The Supreme Ct (6-3) has just reinstated Tsarnaev's death penalty conviction but Biden has said that he is not going to allow any executions so he will live until at least 2025. Tsarnaev was 19 at the time of his crime so he missed the boat too. Of course it's possible that Biden will give clemency to all murderers on Federal death row as a parting FU to America.

  93. @Peter Johnson
    Another interesting and thoughtful column - thanks.

    Off Topic: the New York legislature has adopted a policy idea that Sailer spearheaded: offering marijuana sales licences to the Black community. It is altered slightly to make it conform to the 14th Amendment, but along the proposed lines. I do not have the link to Sailer's columns but he mentioned this idea approvingly several times in various columns.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/09/nyregion/marijuana-sellers-licenses-hochul.html

    Replies: @Known Fact

    The weed-selling licenses will first be offered to people with marijuana convictions. No, I am not kidding.

  94. In other Box-Checking News: As NYC’s longtime fire chief retires, Adams announces the next chief will be a female. On the other hand, he’s also fighting to remove chocolate milk from school menus.

  95. @Batman
    I'm always skeptical of extreme outlier smart lawyers. With a 145 IQ, you could have been a dermatologist who makes more money and actually makes lives better. Instead you decided to enter a terrible profession with terrible job satisfaction. Most days you're leaving the world net even, and many days you're making the world worse.

    What character flaws convince these people to do this?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Kaz, @pirelli, @Achmed E. Newman, @R.G. Camara, @Servant of Gla'aki, @Mike Tre

    I’m always skeptical of extreme outlier smart lawyers…What character flaws convince these people to do this?

    Speaking as someone born in the year 1970, I was subjected to tons of cinematic & TV propaganda during the 1970s, 80s, and 90s, all to the effect that being a lawyer was, like, the greatest job imaginable. Or maybe #2, after journalist, LOL.

    All this propaganda doubtless impacted the choices some people made, especially among women.

  96. anonymous[837] • Disclaimer says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    It is illuminating to speculate upon what the press reaction might be to a Republican president agreeing to a key GOP congressman’s demand that he nominate only a South Carolinian...

    The LSAT is currently scored on a 120 to 180 bell curve scale, with a standard deviation of around 10. At Yale law school, the 25th percentile scores 170, the median 173, and the 75th percentile 176.
     

    What are the figures for Gamecocks? Clement Haynsworth's Gamecocks! Remember Haynsworth? He and G Harold Carswell were rejected, and we got Harry Blackmun and Roe v Wade instead. How many law students fell to Roe?

    I was going to ask about figures at Grambling, but see that they outsource their legal eagles to Iowa.


    drawing-and-quartering
     
    The only American known to be hanged, drawn, and quartered on this side of the ocean was Joshua Tefft, for fighting on the other side in King Philip's War. (Philip got the same treatment, but wasn't exactly an American.)

    Ketanji Brown Jackson = Known Satanic jerk-job.


    An analyst sent me a Monte Carlo simulation
     
    You could wet these simulations and stick them to the wall.

    https://www.takimag.com/wp-content/uploads/1700x923.png

    Replies: @anonymous, @TontoBubbaGoldstein

    Can you please provide the link to the study?

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @anonymous


    Can you please provide the link to the study?
     
    Ask Steve. The image was from his article.
  97. @nebulafox
    In other news:

    https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1501205118775087110

    https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1501209395681808385

    Make no mistake when you worry about affording food or transportation soon: they hate you.

    Replies: @Kolya Krassotkin, @AnotherDad

    JUST IN: Biden to request \$2.6 billion to promote gender equity worldwide http://hill.cm/GYGKrUt

    You know what i could do with \$2.6 billion? Holy Cow! And there would be trickle down to the rest of you folks–i promise.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @AnotherDad

    First of all, just because he is asking doesn't mean that's what he is getting.

    2nd, this is something that he announced at a Woman's Day event. Generally speaking the US has a certain foreign aid budget and they can play games by moving stuff around and characterizing it as for "gender equity" without actually changing the overall budget.

  98. @Jack D
    @MEH 0910

    I think that the days when Justices could be confirmed just for being "eminently qualified" are over. They ended when the Democrats started to assassinate the character of Republican nominees who were also eminently qualified based solely on their political views, not on their qualifications. Was not Kavanaugh "eminently qualified"? And yet Democrats turned his confirmation into a circus that turned upon things that he had allegedly done as a teenager, when they never would have done the same for a liberal. So they have no right to expect to be treated any differently.

    That being said, I agree that there's not much to be gained politically by opposing Jackson. It's not going to change the outcome of the vote or the balance of the court. But fair play dictates that the Republicans treat her no better than Democrats treat "eminently qualified" Republican nominees. I wish we could go back to the days of comity but any fair treatment of Jackson will not be rewarded in the future by Democrats.

    But OTOH, the optics of beating up a black woman because she smoked a joint in high school or something like that would not be good. It would hurt Republicans more than it would hurt her. Maybe this is a double standard but that's the reality.

    Replies: @Rob Lee, @Kylie, @Meretricious, @Nicholas Stix, @Corvinus

    This might be mitigated in part by the Republicans having a black conservative lead the hearings. At the end of the day, while the black community itself will ‘Uncle Tom’ the inquisitor, the media’s teeth will be somewhat blunted by a black-on-black series of exchanges – especially if that black conservative were a female.

    But are Republicans that smart? And do any of those unicorns exist?

  99. @MEH 0910
    @AnotherDad

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Luttig#Resignation


    In May 2006, Luttig resigned to become general counsel and senior vice president for The Boeing Company.[24][25] He replaced Douglas Bain.[26] In his resignation letter, Luttig wrote, "Boeing may well be the only company in America for which I would have ever considered leaving the court."[27] He also mentioned his two children's upcoming college education; the position at Boeing promised more pay than the federal judgeship. At the time of his resignation, federal appellate judges were paid $175,100 annually.[28] According to Boeing's 2008 Annual Report, Luttig's total compensation for 2008 was $2,798,962.[29] Luttig resigned as general counsel to Boeing in May 2019. He was replaced by Brett Gerry.[30] Luttig's resignation coincided with the terminations of former CEO Dennis Muillenberg and former Commercial Aircraft Executive Kevin McCallister that year, during the Boeing 737 MAX groundings crisis.[31]
     

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Michael_Luttig#Father's_murder

    Luttig's father, John Luttig, was fatally shot in 1994 in a carjacking by Napoleon Beazley, who, at the time of the crime, was a seventeen-year-old minor.[16] Luttig testified in the sentencing portion of the trial, providing testimony supporting imposition of the death penalty.[16] Beazley was convicted, condemned to death, and eventually executed after twice appealing to the Supreme Court,[17][18] where Justices Antonin Scalia, David Souter, and Clarence Thomas recused themselves because of past associations with Luttig. Scalia recused himself because Luttig had clerked for him, and Justices David Souter and Clarence Thomas recused themselves because Luttig led the George H. W. Bush Administration's efforts to gain the Senate's confirmation for them.[19]
     
    https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/does-napoleon-beazley-deserve-to-die/

    On April 19, 1994, the day that seventeen-year-old Napoleon Beazley committed cold-blooded murder, the high school senior came home from track practice, showered, and changed into a fresh pair of blue jeans. At that moment, just before he loaded his Haskell .45-caliber semi-automatic pistol and tucked it into his pants, the future held more promise for Napoleon than it had for generations of Beazleys before him, who had made a modest living raising peanuts and cotton near the East Texas town of Grapeland. Napoleon was the president of his senior class and a star athlete, a bright teenager with a loose-limbed confidence and a dazzling smile who had just been voted runner-up for the title of Mr. Grapeland High School. He didn’t drink; he didn’t smoke; he went to church on Sunday. He was an honor student and hoped to attend Stanford Law School someday. But for a light-skinned black teenager mocked by his black peers for acting “too white,” success was not always a blessing. Ambition kindled resentment on the rutted roads south of Chestnut Street, where sagging frame houses have gone to seed and young men idle under shade trees and stray dogs root around for bones. Here, the pistol lent him the hard-edged, cocksure certainty that no scholarship or touchdown could ever provide.

    That night, Napoleon left Grapeland with two small-time hoods, brothers Cedrick and Donald “Fig” Coleman. What happened next would prove to be unfathomable to those people in Grapeland, white and black, who had known Napoleon throughout his short but promising life. He and the Coleman brothers headed first for Corsicana, then for Tyler, an hour’s drive north of Grapeland, looking for a vehicle to carjack. Around eleven o’clock they caught sight of a cream-colored Mercedes-Benz, which they began to tail through a residential neighborhood of large, cantilevered houses and manicured lawns. Inside the Mercedes, Bobbie Luttig sensed that she and her husband of 41 years, independent oilman John Luttig, were being followed.

    As John Luttig drove into their garage, Napoleon darted up the Luttigs’ winding driveway, his pistol drawn. Fig Coleman strode behind him, holding a sawed-off shotgun, while Cedrick waited in the car. No doubt John Luttig would have peacefully handed over the keys to his Mercedes, but he never had the chance. As he stepped out of the car, Bobbie heard him utter one word—”No!”—and then saw the flash of a gun muzzle. John Luttig fell to his knees, struck by a bullet that had grazed his head. Napoleon then fired at Bobbie. Though the shot missed its mark, she sank, terror-stricken, to the garage floor and played dead, her face pressed against the oil-stained cement. Her husband was still alive, kneeling beside the car in shock. Napoleon leaned over the bleeding man and pulled the trigger again. Bobbie kept still, her eyes shut, as her husband’s blood coursed down the driveway. Only after the Mercedes skidded away did she dare move, racing to a neighbor’s house and telling the 911 dispatcher, “My husband has been shot. Please hurry!”

    “Carjackers Kill Tyler Civic Leader Luttig,” the headlines read the next day. “Friends Astounded By Brutal Act.” What set this crime apart was not its depravity, or its casual violence, or its utter senselessness but its power to stir deeply divided emotions—in Grapeland, in Tyler, even in the highest echelons of jurisprudence, all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Napoleon Beazley was not just any murderer, and John Luttig was not just any victim. Napoleon was a minor at the time of his crime, and his case inevitably raised the question of whether even a vicious killer can be too young to be sentenced to death. John Luttig was not only a prominent white citizen in Tyler but also the father of the Honorable J. Michael Luttig, a federal judge who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and is believed to be on President Bush’s short list for potential Supreme Court nominees. Judge Luttig asked that “those who committed this brutal crime receive the full punishment that the law provides.” A Smith County jury later sentenced Napoleon to death.
     

    Replies: @Jack D

    Beazley just missed the boat. In 2005, the Supreme Ct. ruled (5-4) that executing murderers who were under 18 at the time of their crime was “unconstitutional”. Unfortunately, this ruling could not be applied retroactively to prisoners who had already been executed.

    The Supreme Ct (6-3) has just reinstated Tsarnaev’s death penalty conviction but Biden has said that he is not going to allow any executions so he will live until at least 2025. Tsarnaev was 19 at the time of his crime so he missed the boat too. Of course it’s possible that Biden will give clemency to all murderers on Federal death row as a parting FU to America.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  100. @Whereismyhandle
    As far as I know, Clarence Thomas is the only Justice to routinely take clerks from non-elite schools.

    That along with his completely justified refusal to participate in oral arguments (which are theater and don't matter) are two more reasons he's the man.

    My SCOTUS would just be giving Clarence nine votes.


    The complete disintegration of "conservatives" like Roberts is enraging.

    Replies: @E. Rekshun

    As far as I know, Clarence Thomas is the only Justice to routinely take clerks from non-elite schools…The complete disintegration of “conservatives” like Roberts is enraging.

    I’ve read several times that Kavanaugh has only hired female law clerks.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @E. Rekshun


    I’ve read several times that Kavanaugh has only hired female law clerks
     
    And Democrats so appreciated him for this that they approved his confirmation whole-heartedly
  101. @AnotherDad
    @nebulafox


    JUST IN: Biden to request $2.6 billion to promote gender equity worldwide http://hill.cm/GYGKrUt
     
    You know what i could do with $2.6 billion? Holy Cow! And there would be trickle down to the rest of you folks--i promise.

    Replies: @Jack D

    First of all, just because he is asking doesn’t mean that’s what he is getting.

    2nd, this is something that he announced at a Woman’s Day event. Generally speaking the US has a certain foreign aid budget and they can play games by moving stuff around and characterizing it as for “gender equity” without actually changing the overall budget.

  102. @Jack D
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Maybe 90% of what the Supreme Ct. does has no political dimension - patent cases and water right disputes between states and so on.

    It's true that their votes in matters with political dimensions are highly predictable but it's short of 100%. Even in the political cases, although the outcomes are somewhat predictable, their reasoning is quite elaborate and intellectually sound (notwithstanding that it's possible to reach an exactly opposite conclusion reasoning from the same facts). In order for this to work well, it requires a fine legal mind and we have been lucky that most of the Justices have such minds. Putting hacks on there of either political persuasion would not work as well for our country.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic, @AndrewR, @bomag

    Even in the political cases, although the outcomes are somewhat predictable, their reasoning is quite elaborate and intellectually sound…/blockquote>

    That is no comfort.

    The judicial branch naturally leans left, and has been a large driver in society’s drift.

  103. @Jack D
    @MEH 0910

    I think that the days when Justices could be confirmed just for being "eminently qualified" are over. They ended when the Democrats started to assassinate the character of Republican nominees who were also eminently qualified based solely on their political views, not on their qualifications. Was not Kavanaugh "eminently qualified"? And yet Democrats turned his confirmation into a circus that turned upon things that he had allegedly done as a teenager, when they never would have done the same for a liberal. So they have no right to expect to be treated any differently.

    That being said, I agree that there's not much to be gained politically by opposing Jackson. It's not going to change the outcome of the vote or the balance of the court. But fair play dictates that the Republicans treat her no better than Democrats treat "eminently qualified" Republican nominees. I wish we could go back to the days of comity but any fair treatment of Jackson will not be rewarded in the future by Democrats.

    But OTOH, the optics of beating up a black woman because she smoked a joint in high school or something like that would not be good. It would hurt Republicans more than it would hurt her. Maybe this is a double standard but that's the reality.

    Replies: @Rob Lee, @Kylie, @Meretricious, @Nicholas Stix, @Corvinus

    “I think that the days when Justices could be confirmed just for being ’eminently qualified’ are over.”

    Wrong. In today’s America, Jackson is eminently qualified. She’s female, black and leftwing. I fully expect her to be confirmed for these reasons alone.

  104. @Achmed E. Newman
    @Batman


    What character flaws convince these people to do this?
     
    It's only 2 anecdotes, but out of 2 lawyers I've know that were more than acquaintances, both had real character flaws to the point of my wondering if there was a term from psychology to describe it.

    What I wondered is if it was law school or their lawyer work that made them this way or if they became lawyers because of their weird properties.

    As for medicine, I could have done that, as a number of friends did. It's not the blood and guts that I don't like - I even went down to the basement and saw my friend's cadaver - she was a young lady who'd been struck by lightening, and my friend sort of had a crush on her. Anyway, what I don't like is thinking about all the ways the human body can screw up. It's amazing we're all here at all!

    Replies: @Almost Missouri, @AnotherDad

    I even went down to the basement and saw my friend’s cadaver – she was a young lady who’d been struck by lightening, and my friend sort of had a crush on her.

    I hope we’re talking about the basement of a hospital or medical school, not your friend’s house?

    But then my tastes run much more toward girls whose pupils dilate and who respond appropriately to physical stimuli.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @AnotherDad

    Yeah, the basement of the Med School.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @AnotherDad


    But then my tastes run much more toward girls whose pupils dilate and who respond appropriately to physical stimuli.
     
    Some men, e.g., Bill Clinton, are omnivores, and some, e.g., Bill Cosby, are herbivores, preferring the vegetable.

    And some, like Achmed's friend, like them well-done.

    (BTW, "friend's cadaver" is easy to misinterpret.)
  105. @MEH 0910
    https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/politics/jackson-luttig-endorsement/index.html
    https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1498356095110287360

    (CNN)The Biden White House is getting a major endorsement for Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson from a prominent conservative.

    In a statement obtained exclusively by CNN, retired federal Judge J. Michael Luttig, considered a luminary in conservative legal circles, enthusiastically endorsed Jackson, describing her as a candidate who is "eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States."

    "Indeed, she is as highly credentialed and experienced in the law as any nominee in history, having graduated from the Harvard Law School with honors, clerked at the Supreme Court, and served as a Federal Judge for almost a decade." Luttig added.

    [...]
    In his statement of support for Jackson, Luttig called for bipartisan support, writing that, "Republicans and Democrats alike should give their studied advice -- and then their consent -- to the President's nomination of Judge Jackson."

    "Republicans, in ​particular," wrote Luttig, "should vote to confirm Judge Jackson."

    Luttig also expressed his support for Biden's campaign promise that he would nominate the court's first Black woman, saying that Republicans had been wrong to criticize the pledge.

    "The President knew at the time that there were any number of highly qualified black women on the lower federal courts from among whom he could choose -- including Judge Jackson -- and Republicans should have known that the President would nominate one of those supremely qualified black women to succeed Justice Breyer," he said.

    Noting the court's 6-3 conservative majority, Luttig called on Republicans "to confirm Judge Jackson out of political calculation, even if they cannot bring themselves to confirm her out of political magnanimity, and then proudly take the deserved credit for their part in elevating the first black female jurist to the Supreme Court of the United States."
     

    Replies: @AnotherDad, @Jack D, @Abolish_public_education

    she is as highly credentialed [blah blah blah] .. Luttig added

    “She comes with rarified, academic credentials. Like I do.
    She has devoted herself, with great distinction, to selflessly serving our august profession and this great nation. As I have.
    So of course there are none better.”

    Pathetic.

    @#61

    It is altered slightly to make it conform to the 14th Amendment

    The government is not supposed to be carving out loopholes for itself. That sort of tax-funded lawyering makes a mockery of the principle of limited government.

  106. anonymous[213] • Disclaimer says:

    Blacks are too hung up about elite affirmative action like SC appointments and Harvard admissions. They should strive more to build a stable middle class. If enlistment criteria for the US Air Force was lowered, it would create 100,000 new black households.

    • Replies: @Spud Boy
    @anonymous

    I agree.

    This is what I don't get about AA: Any black smart enough to get into Harvard is going to have fine life even if he/she only went to a public university or even a junior college.

    Putting blacks on the SC is not going to stop J'Davius from shooting J'mal in a drive by on Saturday night in Chicago.

  107. @J.Ross
    Roberts proved Justices don't matter and Kavanaugh is re-proving it. The entire system needs an overhaul. We need a legal system that is okay with self-defense and not okay with burning a police station to ash.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @teo toon, @Jack P

    We need a legal system that is not built on case law, which was brought to us by Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. The case law system is Talmudic thinking and as such it makes the black letter law to be of no effect.

  108. @Jack D
    @MEH 0910

    I think that the days when Justices could be confirmed just for being "eminently qualified" are over. They ended when the Democrats started to assassinate the character of Republican nominees who were also eminently qualified based solely on their political views, not on their qualifications. Was not Kavanaugh "eminently qualified"? And yet Democrats turned his confirmation into a circus that turned upon things that he had allegedly done as a teenager, when they never would have done the same for a liberal. So they have no right to expect to be treated any differently.

    That being said, I agree that there's not much to be gained politically by opposing Jackson. It's not going to change the outcome of the vote or the balance of the court. But fair play dictates that the Republicans treat her no better than Democrats treat "eminently qualified" Republican nominees. I wish we could go back to the days of comity but any fair treatment of Jackson will not be rewarded in the future by Democrats.

    But OTOH, the optics of beating up a black woman because she smoked a joint in high school or something like that would not be good. It would hurt Republicans more than it would hurt her. Maybe this is a double standard but that's the reality.

    Replies: @Rob Lee, @Kylie, @Meretricious, @Nicholas Stix, @Corvinus

    my prediction: after Jackson’s hearing is over all of us will agree, including iSteve, that this affirmative action jurist is no more intelligent than Michelle Obama

  109. @J.Ross
    Roberts proved Justices don't matter and Kavanaugh is re-proving it. The entire system needs an overhaul. We need a legal system that is okay with self-defense and not okay with burning a police station to ash.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin, @teo toon, @Jack P

    One fix you might get even bipartisan agreement on is Supreme court justices to serve finite fixed terms. My plan would be three six year terms, with Senate votes to reconfirm after the first and second terms.

    Once a “conservative” judge is confirmed, the incentives are all in favor of caving to the left. They live in a deep blue city, so to their spouses and kids. Their families don’t want to be pariahs. So we get tinkering, at best. Having the Senate revote means there’s some accountability.

    • Disagree: Abolish_public_education
  110. @The Anti-Gnostic
    @Jack D

    ven in the political cases, although the outcomes are somewhat predictable, their reasoning is quite elaborate and intellectually sound

    It's quite elaborate because it's not intellectually sound. Con law is a complete cluster because bored Justices want to be social engineers.

    Replies: @Corvinus

    Con law is rooted in social engineering. That’s a feature, not a bug

  111. Ketanji is likely very smart. Even the blacks who get into Harvard Law are smart. The problem is that shes a high profile soldier for the anti-white, anti-family left. She knows who controls her and will vote accordingly.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
    @Jack P

    Jack, NO, she is not likely very smart--that's the nature of "affirmative action": it's a meritocratic condom

    , @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Jack P

    "Even the blacks who get into Harvard Law are smart."

    HLS -- and Yale for that matter, plus others -- does not really teach the law. It teaches ways of thinking about the law. And a lot of those "ways of thinking" are in direct conflict or contradiction with the actual law. But they don't care because Harvard.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  112. I would not be so quick to dismiss Ms. Jackson’s work as a federal public defender, particularly in D.C. I know that public defenders have a bad reputation – I used to be one. In my experience, there are good public defenders and bad public defenders, just like there are good private lawyers and bad private lawyers. There are two issues that are the cause for public defenders’ bad reputation, one is systemic and the other is inherent to the job.

    The systemic issue is that funding public defenders will never get anybody votes. So state and county public defenders are routinely under-funded compared to their prosecutorial counterparts. This results in the “too many cases, too little time” dilemma that plagues many state public defender agencies. The other issue is that in our system, many of those arrested are guilty. Maybe of a lesser crime and maybe cops did not follow the rules, but we have more people arrested who are guilty than who are innocent, which is generally a good thing. So, many public defender clients get convicted because not only are their attorneys overworked and underpaid but because the evidence against them is strong.

    By definition, most public defender clients are people without a great deal of money so they generally start from the lower end of the socio-economic scale. The less serious the charge, the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Think of it this way: many reasonably prosperous citizens could afford a few thousand dollars for a DUI defense. Might sting but they have friends, family, or other support network to help them. It says a lot about your position in life if you cannot afford even a few thousand dollars for DUI defense. This feeds into the perception that if you have money, you have better odds in the justice system. There is some truth to that but not like many people think.

    Federal court, though, is far different. The majority of federal cases are felonies and federal law is substantially more complicated than state law. Most defendants wind up with appointed counsel because the complexity of the cases means that legal fees are substantially higher than a typical DUI or low-level state felony. Further, federal public defender offices are paid and supported on a par with U.S. Attorneys’ offices. Federal public defenders typically have excellent academic backgrounds. Judge Jackson’s background, with stints at the U.S. Sentencing Commission and working for large private law firms, is pretty consistent with the backgrounds of many people who work in Federal PD offices. And federal PD offices have excellent reputations for the quality of their legal work. It is not a job to take if you want to get home at a reasonable hour.

    If you want to compare it to medicine, a state PD office is similar to an ER room at a county hospital. High volume, cases ranging from simple to complex, and the quality of care varies widely. A federal PD office is analogous to an oncology office run by a well-funded charity, such as Sisters of Providence or other religious group. The volume of cases is not nearly as high. The cases are much more serious. They have resources to better address each case. And the quality of care from the physicians is much higher than a county ER.

    To me, Judge Jackson’s work as an FPD is an excellent addition to the court. She will have represented real people facing real consequences and will hopefully be good for fourth and fifth amendment issues, issues that have been frequently neglected by the court. I will admit I am concerned about her second amendment jurisprudence. And I expect she will lean left on social issues. But she’s replacing Breyer who leaned left on social issues but sided with the government whenever the government was challenged. Maybe Jackson will be the same. I hope, though, she will still have some of that public defender attitude when looking at search and seizure and warrant and sentencing issues.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @NeedMoreBacon

    Very interesting take, thank you.

    , @Abolish_public_education
    @NeedMoreBacon

    we have more people arrested who are guilty than who are innocent

    The opposite is true, many times over, especially at the federal level.

    Campaign finance violations, wire fraud, lying to the FBI (an unconstitutional, fed police force), etc. are speech crimes (#1 violations). ALL of them, and their derivative crimes (e.g. conspiracy to commit ..), need to be tossed. Anyone arrested for such "offenses" is obviously NOT GUILTY, in that the acts alleged are non-crimes.

    I don't know how many different kinds of federal weapons laws are on the books, but EVERY SINGLE ONE violates #2. All those ever convicted of such crimes deserve pardon, a get-out-of-jail, conviction cleared etc. Likewise, all those convicted of federal drug charges. Drug prohibition was repealed, remember?

    Tax evasion. Insider trading. Environmental terrorism. Really. The list goes on and on. Keep those USAs busy, federal courthouses building, and defense lawyers begging for plea deals and leniency.

    At the state level, the lopsidedness is caused the high number of people convicted of nuisance laws like speeding; and [truancy]. Guilty of what?! Then there's the much more serious problem of prosecutorial misconduct, illegal searches, etc. which result in wrongful convictions (yep, even of those factually guilty).

    This new lady, just like all the rest of those reading-challenged, lawyer-judges, will do absolutely NOTHING about any of those abuses. But hey, she went to Harvard, and that's what counts.

  113. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    The question is not whether or not she is smart and competent.

    The question is whether or not she is a fanatic and a racial revanchist.

    Like all others of her cohort and type, she is a fanatic and a racial revanchist.

    Replies: @Bill Jones

    Bingo!

  114. @NeedMoreBacon
    I would not be so quick to dismiss Ms. Jackson's work as a federal public defender, particularly in D.C. I know that public defenders have a bad reputation - I used to be one. In my experience, there are good public defenders and bad public defenders, just like there are good private lawyers and bad private lawyers. There are two issues that are the cause for public defenders' bad reputation, one is systemic and the other is inherent to the job.

    The systemic issue is that funding public defenders will never get anybody votes. So state and county public defenders are routinely under-funded compared to their prosecutorial counterparts. This results in the "too many cases, too little time" dilemma that plagues many state public defender agencies. The other issue is that in our system, many of those arrested are guilty. Maybe of a lesser crime and maybe cops did not follow the rules, but we have more people arrested who are guilty than who are innocent, which is generally a good thing. So, many public defender clients get convicted because not only are their attorneys overworked and underpaid but because the evidence against them is strong.

    By definition, most public defender clients are people without a great deal of money so they generally start from the lower end of the socio-economic scale. The less serious the charge, the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Think of it this way: many reasonably prosperous citizens could afford a few thousand dollars for a DUI defense. Might sting but they have friends, family, or other support network to help them. It says a lot about your position in life if you cannot afford even a few thousand dollars for DUI defense. This feeds into the perception that if you have money, you have better odds in the justice system. There is some truth to that but not like many people think.

    Federal court, though, is far different. The majority of federal cases are felonies and federal law is substantially more complicated than state law. Most defendants wind up with appointed counsel because the complexity of the cases means that legal fees are substantially higher than a typical DUI or low-level state felony. Further, federal public defender offices are paid and supported on a par with U.S. Attorneys' offices. Federal public defenders typically have excellent academic backgrounds. Judge Jackson's background, with stints at the U.S. Sentencing Commission and working for large private law firms, is pretty consistent with the backgrounds of many people who work in Federal PD offices. And federal PD offices have excellent reputations for the quality of their legal work. It is not a job to take if you want to get home at a reasonable hour.

    If you want to compare it to medicine, a state PD office is similar to an ER room at a county hospital. High volume, cases ranging from simple to complex, and the quality of care varies widely. A federal PD office is analogous to an oncology office run by a well-funded charity, such as Sisters of Providence or other religious group. The volume of cases is not nearly as high. The cases are much more serious. They have resources to better address each case. And the quality of care from the physicians is much higher than a county ER.

    To me, Judge Jackson's work as an FPD is an excellent addition to the court. She will have represented real people facing real consequences and will hopefully be good for fourth and fifth amendment issues, issues that have been frequently neglected by the court. I will admit I am concerned about her second amendment jurisprudence. And I expect she will lean left on social issues. But she's replacing Breyer who leaned left on social issues but sided with the government whenever the government was challenged. Maybe Jackson will be the same. I hope, though, she will still have some of that public defender attitude when looking at search and seizure and warrant and sentencing issues.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Abolish_public_education

    Very interesting take, thank you.

  115. @AnotherDad
    @Achmed E. Newman


    I even went down to the basement and saw my friend’s cadaver – she was a young lady who’d been struck by lightening, and my friend sort of had a crush on her.
     
    I hope we're talking about the basement of a hospital or medical school, not your friend's house?

    But then my tastes run much more toward girls whose pupils dilate and who respond appropriately to physical stimuli.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Reg Cæsar

    Yeah, the basement of the Med School.

  116. @anonymous
    @Reg Cæsar

    Can you please provide the link to the study?

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Can you please provide the link to the study?

    Ask Steve. The image was from his article.

  117. @Jack P
    Ketanji is likely very smart. Even the blacks who get into Harvard Law are smart. The problem is that shes a high profile soldier for the anti-white, anti-family left. She knows who controls her and will vote accordingly.

    Replies: @Meretricious, @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Jack, NO, she is not likely very smart–that’s the nature of “affirmative action”: it’s a meritocratic condom

  118. @AnotherDad
    @Achmed E. Newman


    I even went down to the basement and saw my friend’s cadaver – she was a young lady who’d been struck by lightening, and my friend sort of had a crush on her.
     
    I hope we're talking about the basement of a hospital or medical school, not your friend's house?

    But then my tastes run much more toward girls whose pupils dilate and who respond appropriately to physical stimuli.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @Reg Cæsar

    But then my tastes run much more toward girls whose pupils dilate and who respond appropriately to physical stimuli.

    Some men, e.g., Bill Clinton, are omnivores, and some, e.g., Bill Cosby, are herbivores, preferring the vegetable.

    And some, like Achmed’s friend, like them well-done.

    (BTW, “friend’s cadaver” is easy to misinterpret.)

    • LOL: AnotherDad
  119. @Calvin Hobbes
    At VDARE, “Federale” analyzes KBJ’s anti-Trump ruling in an immigration case. KJB’s ruling is 100% lawless bullshit, completely ignoring the clear language of the law in question and instead basing her ruling on nonsense about the “lived experiences” of illegal aliens (whom she refers to as “non-citizens”).

    Affirmative-Action SCOTUS Nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson Is A Kritarch Of The Worst Order

    https://vdare.com/posts/affirmative-action-scotus-nominee-ketanji-brown-jackson-is-a-kritarch-of-the-worst-order

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    I read that one when it got posted, Calvin, but my thanks is for your reading VDare.

  120. Even if she has the horsepower for the job, is she not as likely to be an insane racist like most black girls?

    • Agree: Spud Boy, P. Cleburne
  121. @Mike Tre
    @Mike Tre

    This comment was approved before another comment I made still waiting moderation, listed as comment #2. The truth hurts, I suppose.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @TheJester

    iSteve rarely drops a comment because (I speculate) he is judged by his superiors on the aggregate number of comments he receives for a given blog posting. It’s a popularity contest.

    iSteve does what the MSM does: he posts what he considers dodgy content in the inside pages that are rarely read. I’ve had postings pop up days after I posted them … never lost but rarely read by most of the commentariat.

  122. The politics of Supreme Court appointments over the last 35 years illustrate some interesting principles:

    1. Meritocracy is good for Jews, but only in the context of a broad policy consensus. For example, in the sphere of economics, the consensus position in favour of easy money, bailouts and free trade agreements has been settled for decades.

    In this context, three of the last four Fed chairs over the last 35 years have been Jews. Because economic policy is settled, it’s simply a matter of picking the best people to implement it. This goes for both parties and both the Fed and the Treasury – hence Greenspan, Bernanke and Mnuchin in the GOP and Rubin, Summers, Yellen and Lew on the Democrat side.

    Same with foreign policy. There are lots of Jews on both sides of the aisle (Henry Kissinger, James Schlesinger, Edward Luttwak etc. on the right and Dennis Ross, Tony Blinken, James Rubin etc. on the left). Again, foreign policy is an area where establishment consensus thought has been more or less unassailable since 1945, albeit that the consensus itself isn’t fixed.

    For reasons that are interesting in and of themselves but probably another day’s work, the role of the judiciary never lent itself to such a stifling consensus. Broadly speaking, activist liberalism is the “conservative” position in American jurisprudence, in the sense of being the status quo that the establishment seeks to conserve. By contrast, social conservatism and judicial restraint are comparatively “radical”. Therein lies the difference between the judiciary and the foreign and economic establishments. Originalists have managed to mainstream their dissenting positions to a far greater degree than the Austrian schoolers in economics or the anti-interventionists in foreign policy.

    2. Ideological conflict is rather better for Catholics than it is for Jews. The right of the US Supreme Court has become more and more Catholic dominated since the appointment of Antonin Scalia in 1986. Now the right of the Supreme Court consists of five Catholics (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Barrett and Kavanaugh) and one ex-Catholic (Gorsuch). Bottom line – while Evangelicals are the footsoldiers of social conservatism, they rely on Catholics to populate their pews of intellectuals.

    By contrast, the liberal establishment wing of SCOTUS has, in recent years, been disproportionately Jewish. This peaked in the Obama years, when three Jews sat on the Court (Bader-Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan), all from the liberal wing. If Obama had had his way, Merrick Garland would have made it four, a truly extraordinary disproportion. But…

    3. Affirmative action seems to be a disaster for Jews. with Ginsburg now on the Supreme Court in the Sky and Breyer retired, Kagan becomes the last Jew on the High Court.

    4. Ideological conflict is okay for Jews, but only if meritocracy remains the order of the day. However, with the Democrats becoming ever more obsessed with identitarianism and the liberal view of constitutional jurisprudence becoming increasingly middle-brow and sociological and eschewing traditionally rigourous legal reasoning, smart advocates of liberal activism may actually be a hindrance rather than a help. The problem with people like Breyer, Ginsberg and Kagan is that they can’t necessarily be relied upon to roll out ideologically correct (i.e. woke) decisions – wokeness is decidedly mid-wit and tends to humiliate smarter people (look no further than Ginsberg’s disdain for Kaepernick’s kneeling). In today’s political environment, affirmative action picks may actually be better at what they are appointed to do, which means…

    5. A combination of ideological conflict and affirmative action is as good for blacks as it is bad for Jews – and will likely leave Hispanics feeling rather left out of the spoils system. Expect Ketanji Browne-Jackson to be utterly doctrinaire and to follow Sotomayor’s route of writing very “personal” judgments – we might even see whole paragraphs of her judgments devoted to her hair…

    • Thanks: Unladen Swallow, J.Ross
  123. @NeedMoreBacon
    I would not be so quick to dismiss Ms. Jackson's work as a federal public defender, particularly in D.C. I know that public defenders have a bad reputation - I used to be one. In my experience, there are good public defenders and bad public defenders, just like there are good private lawyers and bad private lawyers. There are two issues that are the cause for public defenders' bad reputation, one is systemic and the other is inherent to the job.

    The systemic issue is that funding public defenders will never get anybody votes. So state and county public defenders are routinely under-funded compared to their prosecutorial counterparts. This results in the "too many cases, too little time" dilemma that plagues many state public defender agencies. The other issue is that in our system, many of those arrested are guilty. Maybe of a lesser crime and maybe cops did not follow the rules, but we have more people arrested who are guilty than who are innocent, which is generally a good thing. So, many public defender clients get convicted because not only are their attorneys overworked and underpaid but because the evidence against them is strong.

    By definition, most public defender clients are people without a great deal of money so they generally start from the lower end of the socio-economic scale. The less serious the charge, the lower end of the socio-economic scale. Think of it this way: many reasonably prosperous citizens could afford a few thousand dollars for a DUI defense. Might sting but they have friends, family, or other support network to help them. It says a lot about your position in life if you cannot afford even a few thousand dollars for DUI defense. This feeds into the perception that if you have money, you have better odds in the justice system. There is some truth to that but not like many people think.

    Federal court, though, is far different. The majority of federal cases are felonies and federal law is substantially more complicated than state law. Most defendants wind up with appointed counsel because the complexity of the cases means that legal fees are substantially higher than a typical DUI or low-level state felony. Further, federal public defender offices are paid and supported on a par with U.S. Attorneys' offices. Federal public defenders typically have excellent academic backgrounds. Judge Jackson's background, with stints at the U.S. Sentencing Commission and working for large private law firms, is pretty consistent with the backgrounds of many people who work in Federal PD offices. And federal PD offices have excellent reputations for the quality of their legal work. It is not a job to take if you want to get home at a reasonable hour.

    If you want to compare it to medicine, a state PD office is similar to an ER room at a county hospital. High volume, cases ranging from simple to complex, and the quality of care varies widely. A federal PD office is analogous to an oncology office run by a well-funded charity, such as Sisters of Providence or other religious group. The volume of cases is not nearly as high. The cases are much more serious. They have resources to better address each case. And the quality of care from the physicians is much higher than a county ER.

    To me, Judge Jackson's work as an FPD is an excellent addition to the court. She will have represented real people facing real consequences and will hopefully be good for fourth and fifth amendment issues, issues that have been frequently neglected by the court. I will admit I am concerned about her second amendment jurisprudence. And I expect she will lean left on social issues. But she's replacing Breyer who leaned left on social issues but sided with the government whenever the government was challenged. Maybe Jackson will be the same. I hope, though, she will still have some of that public defender attitude when looking at search and seizure and warrant and sentencing issues.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Abolish_public_education

    we have more people arrested who are guilty than who are innocent

    The opposite is true, many times over, especially at the federal level.

    Campaign finance violations, wire fraud, lying to the FBI (an unconstitutional, fed police force), etc. are speech crimes (#1 violations). ALL of them, and their derivative crimes (e.g. conspiracy to commit ..), need to be tossed. Anyone arrested for such “offenses” is obviously NOT GUILTY, in that the acts alleged are non-crimes.

    I don’t know how many different kinds of federal weapons laws are on the books, but EVERY SINGLE ONE violates #2. All those ever convicted of such crimes deserve pardon, a get-out-of-jail, conviction cleared etc. Likewise, all those convicted of federal drug charges. Drug prohibition was repealed, remember?

    Tax evasion. Insider trading. Environmental terrorism. Really. The list goes on and on. Keep those USAs busy, federal courthouses building, and defense lawyers begging for plea deals and leniency.

    At the state level, the lopsidedness is caused the high number of people convicted of nuisance laws like speeding; and [truancy]. Guilty of what?! Then there’s the much more serious problem of prosecutorial misconduct, illegal searches, etc. which result in wrongful convictions (yep, even of those factually guilty).

    This new lady, just like all the rest of those reading-challenged, lawyer-judges, will do absolutely NOTHING about any of those abuses. But hey, she went to Harvard, and that’s what counts.

    • LOL: bomag
    • Troll: ScarletNumber
  124. 5222079

    still in moderation. comment #2.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Mike Tre

    So you approved this, but not the original comment. Lol. Are you not allowing criticism of our new justice?

  125. @Batman
    I'm always skeptical of extreme outlier smart lawyers. With a 145 IQ, you could have been a dermatologist who makes more money and actually makes lives better. Instead you decided to enter a terrible profession with terrible job satisfaction. Most days you're leaving the world net even, and many days you're making the world worse.

    What character flaws convince these people to do this?

    Replies: @Jack D, @Kaz, @pirelli, @Achmed E. Newman, @R.G. Camara, @Servant of Gla'aki, @Mike Tre

    “What character flaws convince these people to do this?”

    The want for money and power, on the path (obfuscation) easiest to get it.

  126. @Dr. X
    Aaaaaad... another justice from Harvard.

    With all this talk about "diversity," you'd think you'd get a justice or two from SMU or BYU. But noooo. No matter what their melanin level or estrogen count is, it's all Harvard-Yale, Harvard-Yale.

    Funny how that works.

    Replies: @AndrewR, @NOTA

    We want the kind of diversity where everyone looks different but thinks the same way, rather than the one where everyone thinks differently but looks the same.

  127. @Reg Cæsar

    It is illuminating to speculate upon what the press reaction might be to a Republican president agreeing to a key GOP congressman’s demand that he nominate only a South Carolinian...

    The LSAT is currently scored on a 120 to 180 bell curve scale, with a standard deviation of around 10. At Yale law school, the 25th percentile scores 170, the median 173, and the 75th percentile 176.
     

    What are the figures for Gamecocks? Clement Haynsworth's Gamecocks! Remember Haynsworth? He and G Harold Carswell were rejected, and we got Harry Blackmun and Roe v Wade instead. How many law students fell to Roe?

    I was going to ask about figures at Grambling, but see that they outsource their legal eagles to Iowa.


    drawing-and-quartering
     
    The only American known to be hanged, drawn, and quartered on this side of the ocean was Joshua Tefft, for fighting on the other side in King Philip's War. (Philip got the same treatment, but wasn't exactly an American.)

    Ketanji Brown Jackson = Known Satanic jerk-job.


    An analyst sent me a Monte Carlo simulation
     
    You could wet these simulations and stick them to the wall.

    https://www.takimag.com/wp-content/uploads/1700x923.png

    Replies: @anonymous, @TontoBubbaGoldstein

    What are the figures for Gamecocks? Clement Haynsworth’s Gamecocks!

    Not Gamecocks. Paladins.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @TontoBubbaGoldstein

    Clement Furman Haynsworth Jr.

    Did his family own the place?


    "[Founder Richard]Furman married Elizabeth Haynsworth in November 1772..."


    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Furman

    Furman was born Upstate-- the real Upstate, in Esopus. Now they call the Upcountry "Upstate", which annoys old-timers from both states.

  128. @Peter Johnson
    Speaking of top-end affirmative action hires, the head of Yale Law School's new Law and Racial Justice Center needs a Spring Break trip to the beach before his next photo-shoot, in order to top up his suntan and keep his Black bona fides:

    https://news.yale.edu/2022/03/03/new-yale-center-fight-racial-justice-begins-locally?utm_source=YaleToday&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=YT_Yale%20Today%20Alum%20no%20Parents_3-10-2022

    Replies: @Calvin Hobbes

    From your linked article:

    Vinson: Schools are creating outcomes, they’re not just manifesting them. As a student I saw how that impacted friends. I had a good friend in high school who was involved in the justice system. He was determined to get a high school diploma — he would be the first in his family to graduate from high school. But during our senior year, because he spent some time in a juvenile detention center, the school waited until right before graduation to tell him that even though he had earned all his credits, done all the work, he had simply had too many absences. So he was not going to get his high school diploma. To me, for adults to think that that was an OK outcome for a 17-year-old Black boy who really had done everything he could to get his high school diploma, I just didn’t understand. And I wanted to understand, how did we get here? How do we become this sort of society?

    This friend was “involved in the justice system”. The friend “spent some time in a juvenile detention center”, I’m sure through no fault of his own. And he “had done everything he could to get his high school diploma” (aside from his criminal activities).

    These people are hilarious. Unfortunately, they’re treated as though they were serious people and not like the buffoons they are.

  129. @Patrick in SC

    She even wound up working as a public defender for a while. There have been many attempts to read ideological significance into that, but it strikes me as likely that, as a mother with two young children and a surgeon husband, she wanted a government job with reasonable hours.
     
    Becoming a public defender with those credentials is just... bizarre.

    If it was government work she was after, the natural career path would have been assistant district attorney, or something like that, followed by a position with a well-known criminal defense firm.

    Being a public defender is nasty and demoralizing.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    A high school classmate of mine who is a U of C law grad became a public defender after a short stint in Big Law. He does appellate work.

    My liberal cousin who works in the legal department of J.P. Morgan Chase says, “The trouble with criminal law is your clients are criminals.”

  130. @Jack P
    Ketanji is likely very smart. Even the blacks who get into Harvard Law are smart. The problem is that shes a high profile soldier for the anti-white, anti-family left. She knows who controls her and will vote accordingly.

    Replies: @Meretricious, @The Germ Theory of Disease

    “Even the blacks who get into Harvard Law are smart.”

    HLS — and Yale for that matter, plus others — does not really teach the law. It teaches ways of thinking about the law. And a lot of those “ways of thinking” are in direct conflict or contradiction with the actual law. But they don’t care because Harvard.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @The Germ Theory of Disease


    HLS — and Yale for that matter, plus others — does not really teach the law. It teaches ways of thinking about the law.
     
    Right. Critical Race Theory, which now infects every part of out society, originated at the Harvard Law faculty in the 1980s.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

  131. @Achmed E. Newman
    Instead of Miss Brown Jackson, I would rather see Mr. Jackson Brown up there, who at least understood "It takes a clear mind to MAKE it." At least I THINK he was mumbling about Supreme Court decision making, but it was hard to tell there in the back of the bus.

    From a different album:

    Doctor, my eyes, tell me what is wrong.
    Was I unwise to leave them open for so long ...


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cqoI65z-jo

    Holy Moley, that was 50 years ago!!

    Replies: @Wade Hampton, @danand, @the one they call Desanex, @cityview, @Reg Cæsar

    Instead of M[r]s Brown Jackson, I would rather see Mr. Jackson Brown[e] up there…

    Clyde Jackson Browne. Never forget that. Even though he probably wishes you would.

  132. @E. Rekshun
    @Whereismyhandle

    As far as I know, Clarence Thomas is the only Justice to routinely take clerks from non-elite schools...The complete disintegration of “conservatives” like Roberts is enraging.

    I've read several times that Kavanaugh has only hired female law clerks.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    I’ve read several times that Kavanaugh has only hired female law clerks

    And Democrats so appreciated him for this that they approved his confirmation whole-heartedly

  133. @Mike Tre
    still in moderation. comment #2.

    Replies: @Mike Tre

    So you approved this, but not the original comment. Lol. Are you not allowing criticism of our new justice?

  134. @anonymous
    Blacks are too hung up about elite affirmative action like SC appointments and Harvard admissions. They should strive more to build a stable middle class. If enlistment criteria for the US Air Force was lowered, it would create 100,000 new black households.

    Replies: @Spud Boy

    I agree.

    This is what I don’t get about AA: Any black smart enough to get into Harvard is going to have fine life even if he/she only went to a public university or even a junior college.

    Putting blacks on the SC is not going to stop J’Davius from shooting J’mal in a drive by on Saturday night in Chicago.

  135. @Seneca44
    @Hypnotoad666

    Another not unexpected side effect of AA is that it calls into question the qualifications of even the best candidates. Even if Ms. Brown Jackson were absolutely the best constitutional scholar and judge in the US, someone would always wonder if she got there via a racial spoils system.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Even if Ms. Brown Jackson were absolutely the best constitutional scholar and judge in the US, someone would always wonder if she got there via a racial spoils system.

    I wondered the same thing about every black person I worked with. Fortunately, STEM weeds out most complete dullards because everyone is expected to produce some amount of workable code.

  136. @Intelligent Dasein
    Slightly OT:

    The topic of my latest talk is sincerity in the comments. I feel like there has been a lot of dishonesty posted here and I wanted to address it. Many thanks to Dumbo, RSDB, Red Pill Angel, Bras Cubas, Mike Tre, Almost Missouri, Paperback Writer, and Kratoklastes for all being commenters I have interacted with positively in the past.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwCVVIuIZvE

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    Thanks for the favorable mention. I will try to watch the video this weekend. Since I’m locked out from commenting at YouTube, if I have a comment, I’ll post it here.

  137. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Jack P

    "Even the blacks who get into Harvard Law are smart."

    HLS -- and Yale for that matter, plus others -- does not really teach the law. It teaches ways of thinking about the law. And a lot of those "ways of thinking" are in direct conflict or contradiction with the actual law. But they don't care because Harvard.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    HLS — and Yale for that matter, plus others — does not really teach the law. It teaches ways of thinking about the law.

    Right. Critical Race Theory, which now infects every part of out society, originated at the Harvard Law faculty in the 1980s.

    • Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Jim Don Bob

    It was called Critical Legal Studies back then, and even its early incarnation made me shudder.

    If there's one word I hate more than "signifier," it's "theory."

  138. @Jack D
    @MEH 0910

    I think that the days when Justices could be confirmed just for being "eminently qualified" are over. They ended when the Democrats started to assassinate the character of Republican nominees who were also eminently qualified based solely on their political views, not on their qualifications. Was not Kavanaugh "eminently qualified"? And yet Democrats turned his confirmation into a circus that turned upon things that he had allegedly done as a teenager, when they never would have done the same for a liberal. So they have no right to expect to be treated any differently.

    That being said, I agree that there's not much to be gained politically by opposing Jackson. It's not going to change the outcome of the vote or the balance of the court. But fair play dictates that the Republicans treat her no better than Democrats treat "eminently qualified" Republican nominees. I wish we could go back to the days of comity but any fair treatment of Jackson will not be rewarded in the future by Democrats.

    But OTOH, the optics of beating up a black woman because she smoked a joint in high school or something like that would not be good. It would hurt Republicans more than it would hurt her. Maybe this is a double standard but that's the reality.

    Replies: @Rob Lee, @Kylie, @Meretricious, @Nicholas Stix, @Corvinus

    Screw the optics, Jack. For 60 years, people right of center have worried about “optics” and “tone.” What has that gotten them?

    Oh, and earlier today, I said that “Republican” is one of the worst curse words I know. You can add “conservative” to that.

  139. @Jim Don Bob
    @The Germ Theory of Disease


    HLS — and Yale for that matter, plus others — does not really teach the law. It teaches ways of thinking about the law.
     
    Right. Critical Race Theory, which now infects every part of out society, originated at the Harvard Law faculty in the 1980s.

    Replies: @The Germ Theory of Disease

    It was called Critical Legal Studies back then, and even its early incarnation made me shudder.

    If there’s one word I hate more than “signifier,” it’s “theory.”

  140. @TontoBubbaGoldstein
    @Reg Cæsar

    What are the figures for Gamecocks? Clement Haynsworth’s Gamecocks!

    Not Gamecocks. Paladins.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Clement Furman Haynsworth Jr.

    Did his family own the place?

    “[Founder Richard]Furman married Elizabeth Haynsworth in November 1772…”

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Furman

    Furman was born Upstate– the real Upstate, in Esopus. Now they call the Upcountry “Upstate”, which annoys old-timers from both states.

  141. @Hypnotoad666

    An analyst sent me a Monte Carlo simulation of 2008–2014 data from the Law Schools Admission Council. Across the country, there would annually be about 1,000 white men scoring 170 or higher compared with 550 white women. And there would be about seven black men and three black women.

    So it’s quite possible that Biden’s pick would have been one of those three in her year. After all, for the Supreme Court he only has to pick one black woman out of all the lawyers in the country, so he could well have found one who can do the job up to a reasonable standard.
     
    So Steve is saying that it's theoretically possible that Biden's SCOTUS nominee is one of the three black women in the entire U.S. who scored high enough to be in the bottom 25% of a typical Yale Class. So what's he's telling us is . . . there is a chance.

    https://youtu.be/KX5jNnDMfxA

    Replies: @Jack D, @Dennis Dale

    After she takes her first giant shit on the Constitution and flushes it down with some trite ideological reasoning, we’ll come back to ask Steve “what was all that ‘one of those three’ talk?”

  142. @Jack D
    @MEH 0910

    I think that the days when Justices could be confirmed just for being "eminently qualified" are over. They ended when the Democrats started to assassinate the character of Republican nominees who were also eminently qualified based solely on their political views, not on their qualifications. Was not Kavanaugh "eminently qualified"? And yet Democrats turned his confirmation into a circus that turned upon things that he had allegedly done as a teenager, when they never would have done the same for a liberal. So they have no right to expect to be treated any differently.

    That being said, I agree that there's not much to be gained politically by opposing Jackson. It's not going to change the outcome of the vote or the balance of the court. But fair play dictates that the Republicans treat her no better than Democrats treat "eminently qualified" Republican nominees. I wish we could go back to the days of comity but any fair treatment of Jackson will not be rewarded in the future by Democrats.

    But OTOH, the optics of beating up a black woman because she smoked a joint in high school or something like that would not be good. It would hurt Republicans more than it would hurt her. Maybe this is a double standard but that's the reality.

    Replies: @Rob Lee, @Kylie, @Meretricious, @Nicholas Stix, @Corvinus

    “Was not Kavanaugh “eminently qualified”?”

    No. Next question.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Hidden History of the 1930s and 1940s
Becker update V1.3.2
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement