Ketanji Brown Jackson To Become 104th Associate Justice Thursday At Noon

The Supreme Court announces when Judge Jackson will become Justice Jackson.

Tomorrow is not only the last day of the Supreme Court term and Justice Breyer's final day on the Court. It will also be Ketanji Brown Jackson's first day as a part of the Court.

A press release from the Supreme Court reads:

The Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson will be sworn in as the 104th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on Thursday, June 30, at noon at the Supreme Court of the United States. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., will administer the Constitutional Oath and Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer will administer the Judicial Oath in a ceremony in the West Conference Room before a small gathering of Judge Jackson's family.

The ceremony will be streamed live on the homepage of the Court's website, www.supremecourt.gov.

A formal investiture ceremony will take place at a special sitting of the Court in the Courtroom at a later date.

Although President signed the commission for Jackson's appointment shortly after her confirmation vote, she had not been sworn in as Justice Breyer had yet to retire. With Justice Breyer's announcement that he is retiring tomorrow at noon, however, Justice Jackson can be sworn in -- and she will be. Welcome Justice Jackson!

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

This marks the entry of black women onto the Court, and the hugely ironic re-entry of Protestants.

[legalizeshrooms]

The US population is 13.4% black, but will make up 22.2% of the court.

On the other hand, the US population is 18.7% Hispanic, but Hispanics only make up 11% of the court.

So then to achieve proportional demographic representation on the court, the new Justice should have been a Hispanic man.

[Frank Drackman]

and 10% Lefthanded, how many Southpaw Surpremes???
Lot of Black Shortstops, Catchers, Third basemen, Second base, how many lefties??? (I know 5 (in all of MLB History!), one of them being Lou Gehrig, and look what happened to him!) That's right MLB is more friendly to People of Southpawness than the Highest Court in the Land...

Frank "Lefty" Drackman "Left My People Play Shortstop!!!"

[TwelveInchPianist]

"This marks the entry of black women onto the Court,"

Are you sure? Have you consulted a biologist?

[Frank Drackman]

She's got flaring nostrils, so she's at least 1,024th Black

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Could this white, male, conservative blog ever get through a day without bigoted content?

[DaivdBehar]

Rev. Can you get through a single comment withoit any lawyer content? Come on, give us cite, one little cite.

[Mr. Bumble]

Welcome to the Court PBJ. Hopefully you'll spend yor summer attending judge school to sharpen up your skills and maybe take a course in biology.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you also hope Justice Barrett spends the summer trying to learn to distinguish the reality-based world from silly fairy tales? She should be old enough to know better by now.

[Cal Cetín]

Guess who said this:

"I must begin these very brief remarks by thanking God for delivering me to this point in my professional journey. My life has been blessed beyond measure, and I do know that one can only come this far by faith."

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2022/02/25/remarks-by-president-biden-on-his-nomination-of-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-to-serve-as-associate-justice-of-the-u-s-supreme-court/

[Cal Cetín]

I think the Court needs an Asian Jehovah's Witness.

Two groups which often got the short end of the stick at the Court's hands.

[Syd Henderson]

"This marks the entry of black women onto the Court, and the hugely ironic re-entry of Protestants."

Gorsuch is Protestant, though he was raised Catholic. He's now Episcopalian.

[santamonica811]

Something, something Biden. Something something liberals. Something something Kamala Harris. Something something Democrats.

There, I've summarized most of the next 100 comments. 🙂

[Doug Heffernan]

It's not only something. It is also nothing, not to mention everything. Something might not be nothing or everything. But nothing is everything. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOoebZMOXaU

[Dan Schiavetta]

You left out the expected racial and misogynist vulgarities.

[Commenter_XY]

I am not looking forward to that either = racist vulgarity

I really hope Justice Brown-Jackson does well. She is the first female black justice, and I am glad to see this happen in America. It is never easy to be the first; I cannot begin to imagine how hard that is.

[Brett Bellmore]

It would be in the nation's interest that she does well, but considering that competency was something like the forth tier criteria, after sex, race, and political ideology, I'm not holding my breath.

From an outcomes standpoint, they'd have been better off forgetting sex and race, and just picking the most brilliant progressive they could find. Maybe some Indian guy... 😉

[Dan Schiavetta]

You are assuming a lack of competence because she’s black and female. In fact there are dozens of brilliant black women that could have been picked. (On the liberal side, that is. On the conservative side, not so much.)

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I'm assuming relative lack of competence because they excluded about 97% of the possible candidates before getting around to considering competency. That stacks the odds a bit.

It's really hard to argue that they found the best possible candidate after doing that.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Do you really think picking the most qualified possible (out of tens of thousands) has ever been actually done? Or is even possible?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Do you really think picking the most qualified possible (out of tens of thousands) has ever been actually done? Or is even possible?"

Yes.

[Dan Schiavetta]

No

Never was

Never will be

[CJColucci]

Can anyone name a half-dozen justices who were, objectively, the best qualified possible candidate when selected?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why? Most people have rather strong feelings about which of the top two presidential candidates are the most qualified.

And most people have strong feelings even about which of a slate of primary candidates for a particular party are the most qualified. Why are judges special?

[bernard11]

Why? Most people have rather strong feelings about which of the top two presidential candidates are the most qualified.

Because there is a difference between picking the better-qualified out of two candidates and picking the best-qualified out of a great many possible court nominees.

Besides, few voters pick their preferred candidate on the basis of objective qualifications.

[Don Nico]

Clearly we did not get the top two presidential candidates. Not even close to it.

[bernard11]

Underlying your statement is the assumption that there is someone identifiable as "the best possible candidate" on some sort of experience/aptitude scale. But there's not.

How many people in the country do you think could do the job?

To get you started, there are 179 Appeals court judgeships, and several hundred state supreme court judges. What percentage of those could be a Supreme Court Justice? And what method do you propose to use to rank them? Ilya Shapiro's opinion?

Finally, politics has always influenced judicial appointments. Why do you single out this case for criticism?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"And what method do you propose to use to rank them? Ilya Shapiro's opinion?"

Well, I'd use my opinion. But Biden's president, so he'd probably use his opinion.

[bernard11]

Right.

So Brett's assumption is wrong.

[CJColucci]

Well, above I asked people to name names, pick out six Justices from the entire history of the Court who were, objectively, the best possible candidates available at the time. Crickets.

[MaddogEngineer]

As far as a candidate's qualifications, there is no difference limiting your search to either "black women" or "white men". Neither limitation helps with that. The former only helps settle past grievances, the latter would be considered unjustifiable discrimination. Limiting your candidate pool does not help you find the best qualified. Coming full circle, in reality we don't even agree on what the relevant qualifications are.

It might be fruitful to take time and reflect on this dichotomy.

[CJColucci]

It's not all that difficult. At any given time there are hundreds of objectively excellent candidates. There is no such thing as an ascertainably "best qualified" candidate. Every President restricts the "pool" in which he fishes. No one would seriously argue that we're being cheated, in terms of objective quality, by Republican Presidents picking Republican judges or Democrats picking Democrats. Or by picking a woman, or a member of any ethnic group significantly represented in the legal profession. Some pools are very small, say, conservative black Republicans, so you'll be fishing in shallow waters. But other than that, there's no real issue.

[Bob from Ohio]

I think he's assuming it because it wasn't a criteria in Biden's campaign promise. Just her sex and race.

[Don Nico]

Crisis ,
Brett has many faults but not the one you just criticized him for

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not consciously. Unconsciously is a different question.

[bevis the lumberjack]

So someone can avoid doing anything racist but still be a racist? Subconsciously of course. Because you can use your political hackery to read the mind of someone you’ll never meet? Lol. Time for you to join the don’t waste time reading group.

[Sarcastr0]

Ask Brett about race and IQ sometime.

[Frank Drackman]

What? Intelligence isn't perfectly equally distributed among the different races like other characteristics, such as Vertical Jump, Proportion of Fast Twitch/Slow Twitch muscles, Hemoglobin S, Rhythm, Alcohol metabolism????? Wondered where all the Asian NBA players/Black Grandmasters/White Sprinters were hiding...

[Don Nico]

How do you want to measure IQ?
How about physics GRE scores?

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, that's part of the issue, isn't it?

[Brett Bellmore]

And I'll tell you the same thing every time: That any correlation between race and IQ is perfectly useless for evaluating any individual person in front of you, because people are not average representations of their group, they're individuals.

But if you're doing statistics, whether the averages are the same between races is a contingent fact, don't let ideology blind you to that.

[Sarcastr0]

You're still making a claim about a race.
Based on a debunked book.

It uses South African blacks as blacks that have not had to deal with oppression, FFS.

And yet however many things I link walking through why The Bell Curve is crap, you still believe in it.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It's a contingent fact" is a pretty shallow and secure claim, I would think. Is that something you'd want to dispute, really? I'd like to hear the argument for it not being contingent.

"And yet however many things I link walking through why The Bell Curve is crap, you still believe in it."

And yet, no matter how many times I point out that disagreeing and refuting aren't the same thing, you still think they are.

[Brett Bellmore]

You know, the funny thing is that the Bell Curve isn't really about racial differences in intelligence, that's a bit of a side thing. It's mostly about the negative social implications of assortive mating.

[Sarcastr0]

I've read the book, and there was a lot about specifically black vs white IQ in there. I mean, look at the roadshow the authors have been on since - not about mating!

Seeking a group correlation that is swamped by random individual variance is bad stats.

[DaivdBehar]

Her not knowing what a woman is impressed me.

[legalizeshrooms]

Why limit ourselves to US citizens? We could have had President Zelenskyy.

[Frank Drackman]

Who's leading his "Country" to ruin? Great Choice! I like the Presidents who win.

[legalizeshrooms]

He's leading the fight for the rule of law in Europe.

[Frank Drackman]

and (HT C. Sheen) "Loose-ing"
but hey, we've got the Swedes and Finns on our side? What, was the Vatican Swiss Guard already booked??
I like peace, I don't want a World War 3 or even a World War 2.5.

Frank "Yay Roosh-a"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" I am not looking forward to that either = racist vulgarity "

If you didn't like racist vulgarity, you wouldn't be at this white, male, right-wing, bigoted blog.

Do you believe your own bullshit?

[Frank Drackman]

apparently you do, Jerry. Being all ashamed of your Almer Mater https://law.udc.edu/
Hey, not everybody can go to Yale like my Man Clarence "Frogman" Thomas.
Frank

[Frank Drackman]

About Clarence Thomas? you're right, goddamn Race-ists!

[bernard11]

You left out Hilary.

[Armchair Lawyer]

No one cares about Harris.

But you forgot, at least 25% need to be about Trump.

[Aemon McGarret]

All most of us know is what we read & hear in the media about Justice Ketanji- Jackson & everybody & everything else. Which is of very questionable value. Like mostly not worth spit. Race really is one of the major faults (both kinds) in our society. You can see it here often. Human animals are naturally hostile to people outside their group. And the northern European keen sense of the fact that someone else "just wasn't white" takes in almost all shades. Sometimes even Italians aren't white. Then there is that whole white & non-white Hispanic thing. But the animosity & viciousness of the reaction to Blacks is in a class of its own. Not to minimize all of the other communities that have been abused by European colonialism.
That Justice Ketanji-Jackson is Black is less interesting than her legal background. Which is the point after all. Right? She has a very challenging position. It is a very long way back to when our government actually functioned. Here's hopes for positive outcomes.

[Roger S]

The confirmation is not legitimate, as there was no vacancy when the Senate voted. We should never accept her as a legitimate member of the court.

[Don Nico]

Roger,
Do you care to elaborate the legal basis for that claim?
Would you care to tell us who would adjudicate?

[Mr. Bumble]

Just curious; has a justice ever been confirmed prior to an actual vacancy?

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty sure it must have happened at some point, justices not being immune to sudden death.

[Frank Drackman]

Ummm, yeah, only like "Never", Jeezus, and I'm the IANAL here.

[Mr. Bumble]

That doesn't make sense, which is surprising coming from you.

Death (sudden or otherwise) creates a vacancy. In this case it was an announced retirement. It's done now, but how do you confirm someone to a vacancy that doesn't exist?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I did misread that.

Yes, multiple justices have been confirmed in circumstances similar to the Breyer/Jackson case.

[Roger S]

Just think about it. Could Pres. Biden make 9 more appointments to the Court, get them confirmed, and have them waiting for deaths or retirements? Of course not. An appointment has to be for a newly created position, or a vacancy.

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon (Man!) that's just the constitution, it's taken 250 years to get the 2d ammendment some respect, but I agree he won't
1: Sleepy couldn't stay awake that long 2: to get another Black Female he'd have to ask Whoopie Goldberg, and noway she's working for that Surpreme Chump Change, 3: Joe Man-chin,

Frank

[bevis the lumberjack]

I doubt it, but let’s say it’s theoretically possible. And that every single senator in his party is willing to blow off precedent and make a mockery of the court. Problem is that he’ll leave office before any of them are sworn in and the next Senate could retract their approval. Or the next president would withdraw the nomination. It’s a bunch of wasted angst.

[Roger S]

Are you saying the Senate could retract its approval for Jackson today? That has never happened, and would only happen if the original approval were defective.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't recall there being any precedent for the Senate reversing a vote in favor of confirmation. I think there's a better case for a President withdrawing a nomination after they're confirmed, if the vacancy hasn't materialized yet. But probably isn't any precedent for that, either.

[Cal Cetín]

As a practical matter, when a judge sends in his/her/zir resignation/retirement letter, with a defined point at which their term ends ("effective June 30," "effective on confirmation of my successor"), then the Pres and Senate shouldn't have to wait until the resignation takes effect (which would raise some interesting problems if the resignation is effective on confirmation of a successor). Go ahead and designate someone to fill the soon-to-come vacancy.

As for designating "shadow justices" ghoulishly waiting in the wings for a specified sitting justice to die or resign, without knowing when that will happen, "a page of history is worth a volume of logic," and there's no evidence from actual practice of such a thing being tried.

[not guilty]

How many of the folks who kvetch about President Biden's confining his search to black women (pursuant to his campaign promise) complained when President Reagan delivered on his campaign promise to nominate a woman to SCOTUS? In each case, the applicable criteria were baked into the electoral cake.

The biggest difference is that Sandra O'Connor had a thinner judicial resume prior to appointment.

[bevis the lumberjack]

None of them. Because they were either not born yet, or were children, or were in high school or college and didn’t give a shit about the resume of Supreme Court nominees. So the answer is virtually zero.

How many of them complained when Thurgood Marshall was nominated? Roger Taney?

You need work on your whataboutism game.

[Roger S]

Some did complain about O'Connor. In this case, we have already seen how poorly the Black woman VP has worked out.

[F.D. Wolf]

The person hurt most by Biden's ill-advised campaign pandering is Judge Jackson herself. He essentially labelled her, "not the best available candidate but the best available black female nominee." He would have done her, himself, and the nation a great service by promising nothing and simply nominating her.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Do you say the same about Barrett and O’Connor, you racist, right-wing jackass?

[Cal Cetín]

It seems that racism now includes saying the President would have done the country a service by appointing a black woman to the Supreme Court - not only that, but without the insinuation that there were better-qualifed candidates he was deliberately overlooking.

For all I know, soon-to-be Justice Jackson may be the "best-qualified" progressive for the post. Which means she would be extra-skillful in defending bad legal ideas. And how would that benefit the country?

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, Wolf. You're being forced to call her a meritless pick by Biden, and the stuff he never said.

[F.D. Wolf]

"Stuff he never said" complains the guy accusing me of something I never said.

Indeed. Biden is the sharpest thinker since Aristotle and the greatest orator since Cicero, and the idea that he might err in judgment or misspeak is patently absurd.

I believe, as I suspect do most people, that Biden's promise to nominate a black woman, rather than just doing so, did Judge Jackson no favors. Perhaps you disagree. Or perhaps you feel a reflexive need to defend every act and utterance of Joe Biden. Or perhaps you have just decided to incessantly pester me on this site.

[Bill Falcon]

Dis is what we have and Dis is what we have (around here it seems)

[Heedless]

Math not your strong suit, huh?

3/116 = .0258 or 2.6%

[legalizeshrooms]

According to supremecourt.gov, one of them have been Hispanic. That's .008 %.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Why is it important that Biden had to select a black woman? Blacks are 12.5% of the US population, black women therefore are 6.25%. Why do they deserve a special representative on the USSC?

Asians are nearly 6% of the population themselves: Should they not have a representative?

[legalizeshrooms]

In other words, a 1/3 of that.

[bernard11]

Wouldn't that be .8%?

[MatthewSlyfield]

1. Personally if you want to talk about group representation on the Supreme Court, which I think is a bad idea generally, only the current court should count.

2. If you are going to quotas, there are 9 justices, there for you can't proportionally represent any group that is less than 11.11% of the population. Any group smaller than 11.11% of the population will necessarily be either over represented if they have a seat or under represented if they don't.

[rswallen]

Because the Dems currently believe that race and sex are important factors to consider when nominating people to positions in government

[bernard11]

Why?

Well, first, he said he was going to do so, so it was keeping a promise.

But regardless, other Presidents, including Trump, have specifically said they were going to appoint a woman, and did so.

I can think of one difference here. Is that what you are complaining about?

[DaivdBehar]

Yes, Rhoid. Brilliant point. Lawyers have been 0.5% of the population yet, are 100% of the Court. I agree they should be less than 1% of the court by your brilliant logic. Historically, they have been less than 50%. Until 99% of the Court is non-lawyers, no lawyer should ever be nominated. No Ivy indoctrinated lawyer scumbag should ever be nominated since they are 1000 times more toxic than members of organized crime.

[Frank Drackman]

yeah, you only overestimated the underrepresentation by 100 times,
hey, I thought "Your People" invented the Decimal Point?

[TwelveInchPianist]

All black women are objectively qualified.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, when the "objective qualifications" are just being nominated and confirmed. I'm sure all the 'progressive' black women he considered even had legal educations.

But I think the Democrats cheated themselves by making sure they wouldn't get the best nominee they could, only, possibly, the best progressive black woman nominee.

If you think limiting your candidate search to 3% of the potential candidates, on the basis of irrelevant considerations, doesn't hurt you in terms of quality, I think you're lying to yourself.

[DaivdBehar]

Hey, Rhoid. Welcome to Detroit, Hon. They have done really badly when represented by one of their under performing, America Hating own. One example of the devastating effects of affirmative action was the election of Obama. They busted records of prosperity under Trump.

[DaivdBehar]

Hi, Rhoid. Love your fascinating analysis. I want to support your applying for the job you deserve. Please, let us know your progress.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not a serious response

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Prof. Adler:

You had to know your post would attract a flurry of ugly, racist comments from the ugly, downscale right-wing bigots this blog has cultivated at its audience.

Why participate in that sordid activity?

I believe you are better than this.

[DaivdBehar]

Where do you live, Honey? Why not a black governed town for you?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Of course it is. There are no qualifications for SCOTUS other than appointment and advice and consent.

[Sarcastr0]

Switching to a formalistic definition of qualified that is not at all useful is not even funny.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

So do Republicans. They believe the Court belong to white men -- except for a token handmaiden.

[Don Nico]

Not really, bernard.
Asians are consistently underrepresented among Presidential appointments

[CocoN8]

Not really the same. Barrett's sex was a third-level filter in the selection process. The first and second level (ideology and competency) having been applied by the Federalist Society in assembling their list of potential justices for Trump to pick from.

With KJB, those filters were applied in the opposite order. First all male and non-black candidates were removed, and THEN the competency filter was applied.

Whether that's good or bad or immaterial, I'll let others decide. But it is distinct from what occurred with the Barrett nomination.

[Frank Drackman]

Again, people can't multiply, wait, they CAN multiply, that's the problem, they can't do mathematics above counting to 10 (or 20.1 when Reverend Jerry lowers his shorts)

Frank I love to eat 3.1416

[TwelveInchPianist]

So how does it feel to be outclassed in your profession by a handmaiden?

[Frank Drackman]

C'mon Jerry, did you just call CT a "Token", wait till the Bruthas on Cellblock C at https://www.cor.pa.gov/Facilities/StatePrisons/Pages/Greene.aspx
find out!

Frank

[Flight-ER-Doc]

LOL

How about Sandra Day O'Conner?

[Frank Drackman]

She/He/It isn't crazy DB, Blacks save their best violence for the suckers who try to "Gentrify" their shitholes.

[Frank Drackman]

Who can't tell a penis from a vagina.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I get the counter-argument, which is that above some relatively low threshold everybody is interchangeable. I just think that's bullshit.

[Frank Drackman]

when I stopped being a child I stopped caring about childish things, like capitalization Rules.
And I haven't finger painted since then either, (nose painting, yes)

Frank "is it N-word, or n-Word?"

[Papa Joe Hickbelly]

Any time I see you post, I flag your comments. Ciao.

[DaivdBehar]

Preciate you. So few read my comments. Keep flagging.

[DaivdBehar]

I worry about Rhoid. I care too much.

[Sarcastr0]

With KJB, those filters were applied in the opposite order.

This is unsupported.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I wouldn’t know.

Did she ever make partner at a big or strong law firm?

I am confident I have earned far more than she has.

I do not consider judges — especially Federalist Society judges chosen for ideology — to deserve much respect, certainly not as much as lawyers who serve clients and whose work is vindicated by the marketplace. They are political officeholders more than strong lawyers.

As an academic, and as a law clerk, she got and kept her job as much for political ideology and religious affiliation as anything else.

I also don’t respect religious kooks (or cultists) and culture war casualties.

[Brett Bellmore]

Biden came right out and said the nominee would be a black woman. That IS applying those filters up front.

But the order of the filters isn't relevant, really. You get the same result whether you eliminate all the candidates where weren't black and a woman up front, or after considering competence, the distributive principle applies here. The problem is adding very restrictive EXTRA criteria, unrelated to merit. There'd be the same problem if he'd declared he would only appoint somebody with red hair, or who was left-handed.

[Brett Bellmore]

Technically, that's true of any group whose proportion of the population doesn't happen to be an integer multiple of 1/9th. It's called "quantization error". It's just that for under 11% you're either over-represented or not represented at all.

[Sarcastr0]

That says nothing about the order of filters being applied any more than when Trump said it.

[Sarcastr0]

And, once again, your objection only tracks if you *assume* KBJ is without merit.