Hillary Clinton tweet: I'd say she's qualified.

[demmiblue]

Link to tweet

[niyad]

1. Off to greatest.

[peppertree]

2. But like Hillary herself, NO amount of qualifications could ever be enough for right-wingers

They hate them both with a passion, and don't even know why.

[NNadir]

7. Both because they're women, Jackson because they've racists.

[calimary]

11. Hillary would have been MARVELOUS on the Supreme Court!

But she’s too old. Might serve for awhile, but the prevailing strategy is to get ‘em in there young. So they’re in there for decades.

At least until we can get the “lifetime appointment” rule changed. I think it SHOULD change. Because society changes. Laws change. Norms change. Guiding principles evolve, expand, and change to meet the evolving, changing needs of the times. People who were not considered to have equal rights decades ago ARE entitled to those rights now.

Government and laws evolve to meet the changing times. And if we’re shackled to a 30- or 40-year-old mentality that’s allowed to make rulings on TODAY’S nuanced and evolved situations, that may serve 30- or 40-years-ago America. That’s NOT American ca now. We are NOT that. We are, and this is, 2022 America. With THESE conditions and governing principles and dynamics and realities NOW. And I think we need mindsets reflecting who we ARE, NOW, rather than what we USED TO BE.

That’s why I think Supreme Court justices need term limits. I wouldn’t want to be judged in the here and now, for example, by someone whose belief systems and interpretation of the law are anchored in a time before women made inroads into an all-male power structure, other racial groups weren’t viewed as equals, and anything “gay” was locked away in a closet.

[fescuerescue]

22. Hillary deserves more than just a junior seat on the SC court.

Maybe Chief Justice but even that falls short.

[calimary]

29. Agreed.

After all, more Americans voted for HER for President than went for Orange Treasonous.

[DENVERPOPS]

17. And, I have to say

that there has been no other person who was as qualified as Hillary in the last 100 years to be elected to the Presidency...........
The Republicans recognized this early on in Bill's presidency, and began the smearing of Hillary back then..............

[fescuerescue]

23. More like since 1776

Probably only George Washington was more qualified.

[DENVERPOPS]

24. They got away with their corruption

wiping Dems out in the Gore 2000 and the Kerry 2004, and pulled it off once again in 2016.
And have tried, all out, to corruptly, and at all costs, overthrow the 2020 election...............

If they succeed at controlling both the U.S. House, and/or the U.S. Senate in this 2022 election, it will be the kiss of death.
We must get the truth out, and get the votes out, or this election will let the Republican's determine the future of America/Democracy for ever more......

The Republicans still remain one millimeter away from installing a Corporate Fascist Tyranny. The "USA" will be replaced with "UCA"....
United Corporations of America.........

And the Republican's tactics will become even more despicable in the months to come.................Both at a National level, and at the state levels.........They are going "all in" on this election and the 2024 election........

[Alice Kramden]

37. Too true

Sums it up perfectly

[Wounded Bear]

3. No question she's qualified...

though the small minded fascist wannabes may not agree.

[IronLionZion]

4. Yes, put her qualifications up against Coney-Barrett, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch

although this chart makes Kagan and Sotomayor look bad too.

Of course Jackson is qualified. That's why Biden nominated her. They were saying any candidate would be unqualified before anyone was named.

[thesquanderer]

8. re: "this chart makes Kagan and Sotomayor look bad too"

The chart seems "cherry picked" in Jackson's favor. I assume there are other relevant experiences that one or more of the other justices have, that Jackson doesn't, too. Nobody is going to have every conceivable relevant qualification.

[Make7]

10. I don't think Earl Warren was ever a judge prior to becoming Chief Justice. ( n/t )

[fescuerescue]

21. That's my feeling as well.

Honestly we could pick any judge and then cherry pick a straight line of qualifications.

Imagine if the Republicans used this exact same chart when Kagan's nomination was being evaluated.

[tavernier]

5. Did Amy Barrett even graduate high school?

I think you can clerk and be a judge without any qualifications. Wasn’t there a 15-year-old kid who ran unopposed in an election in a small town and won?

[Hekate]

6. The graph specifies public school.

[July]

26. Am I reading it wrong?

I thought the yellow squares next to “public school” meant that the person it appears under did go to public school, while those without did not. Barrett, like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Sotomayor does not have the yellow square — meaning she attended private school, I assumed.

[calimary]

33. What really gets me about Amy (Coney Island) is - as a conservative,

especially one who is probably going to vote down Roe v Wade, she's got five kids. FIVE. So why is this "mother of the year" not home taking care of them, as she seems to think that's the one main place to which all other women should be confined? Why WAS she not staying home to raise them instead of pursuing a legal career, including a lower-court judgeship? That's an incredibly intense pull on your time. I had TWO kids and had to give up my career so they'd grow up having had a mother who they'll remember as personally active in their lives every day, and not an absentee. That takes a lot of time and a TON of focus and energy off the charts and a shitload of sacrifice.

So does an intensive and upwardly-mobile career in the law and the judiciary. And study. And reading galore. And researching, documenting, and polishing statements. Or at least working with an assistant charged with the heavy lifting there? Which is still an involved, complex, and time-consuming job even with the assistant. Building a law-and-judicial career that's long enough and impressive enough to attract attention from - and be taken seriously by - activists and well-positioned partisans takes time. MANY years and oodles of effort. So how did she fit in all those kids? I gave up my career because I couldn't see a way to do both as well as I wanted to, and I realized you can't serve two masters. Amy evidently didn't see that as a conflict. Or maybe she had five nannies? That costs a fortune just anyway, but excruciatingly so if you plan to have your kids in some private school.

So indeed DID she stay at home to raise those kids as she seems to want all the rest of us women to do? Or did she leave them with nannies and babysitters or let her husband do it? Evidently she took full advantage of that choice and an enviable array of options, and didn't hesitate to avail herself of them, but she would deny any such privilege to any other women. Not every woman out there, of child-bearing age, enjoys the lavish luxury of choices Amy's had.

[abqtommy]

9. I agree with Madame President Hillary. nt

[Imallin4Joe]

12. Yes!

recd

[FakeNoose]

13. Yes she is - however Thomas and Barrett can hardly make the same claim

There needs to be a new requirement for all future federal judges: minimum of 2 year's service as a public defender or 2 years as a federal prosecutor. Being a well-paid attorney for a fancy downtown corporate law firm does NOT qualify anyone for the federal bench.

[calimary]

35. Boy, that sounds like a really superb idea!!!

EXCELLENT, to be precise. That perspective would be absolute perfection, and very necessary to have a seriously well-rounded portfolio. One that's well worthy of higher professional positioning. Should be a necessity.

[BootinUp]

14. K&R

[Dukkha]

15. Especially public defender experience

It's easy to parrot that everyone should have the same legal rights, but the pubic defenders really put that to the challenge.

[dlk]

16. It's never really about qualifications...

[jalan48]

19. +1

It's about politics and has been for some time.

[Pepsidog]

18. I hope that is blown up and shoved in R Senators faces.

[fescuerescue]

20. Kinda of an Odd mix between Public High School and Ivy League Private School

Why is public a plus in K-12, but a negative in 13+ ? Or the vice versa?

Jackson will be a great judge, but this infographic feels a little inconsistent.

Also this graphic makes Kagan look unqualified. But she is probably the best SC on the bench right now.

[DinahMoeHum]

25. Says it all. . .

[SunSeeker]

28. K & R & Retweeted!

[MustLoveBeagles]

30. K&R

[Blue Owl]

31. Look how 'barely qualified' tRump's nose picks are

[BlueIdaho]

32. Barrett isn't even qualified

To carry Justice Jackson’s brief case.

[ck4829]

34. K&R

[lunatica]

36. That graphic just impresses

the shit out of me! Hillary, as usual, is right.