Comments by "Daily Wire Third Stringer" (@DailyWireThirdStringer) on "Ketanji Brown Jackson confirmed to Supreme Court in historic vote l WNT" video.

  1.  @Георг-л5л  Yeah she only has 9 years experience on the federal bench (more than four other Justices had COMBINED at the time of their nominations) AND clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer AND is a graduate of an Ivy League university AND has experience as a public defender AND was appointed to the prestigious D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals with bipartisan support just last year. She's not at all qualified. 🙄🤦‍♂️
    6
  2. @Hunter B. We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
    5
  3. She only has 9 years experience on the federal bench (more than four other Justices had COMBINED at the time of their nominations) AND clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer AND is a graduate of an Ivy League university AND has experience as a public defender AND was appointed to the prestigious D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals with bipartisan support just last year. She'll serve our country well. Let's go KBJ!!! 👩🏿‍⚖️
    4
  4. Biden can nominate whoever he wants. Anyone crying foul that he's selecting on the basis of immutable characteristics better not lean Republican. Ronald Reagan specifically selected the first female nominee to the Supreme Court (Sandra Day O'Connor), his successor George H.W. Bush replaced the first African-American Justice (Thurgood Marshall) with Clarence Thomas, and just over a year ago President Trump made a shortlist of female judges to fill Ruth Bader Ginsberg's seat, ultimately deciding on Amy Coney Barrett. Well, two can play at that game.
    4
  5. We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
    2
  6. Anybody who identifies as one. Next question.
    2
  7. Biden can nominate whoever he wants. Anyone crying foul that he's selecting on the basis of immutable characteristics better not lean Republican. Ronald Reagan specifically selected the first female nominee to the Supreme Court (Sandra Day O'Connor), his successor George H.W. Bush replaced the first African-American Justice (Thurgood Marshall) with Clarence Thomas, and just over a year ago President Trump made a shortlist of female judges to fill Ruth Bader Ginsberg's seat, ultimately deciding on Amy Coney Barrett. Well, two can play at that game.
    2
  8.  @zerothm1  She only has 9 years experience on the federal bench (more than four other Justices had COMBINED at the time of their nominations) AND clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer AND is a graduate of an Ivy League university AND has experience as a public defender AND was appointed to the prestigious D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals with bipartisan support just last year. THAT'S "qualified".
    2
  9. We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
    1
  10.  @katiechapman277  Anyone who identifies as one. Next question.
    1
  11. We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
    1
  12.  @DBrentWalton  That's sex, not gender. 🤦‍♂️
    1
  13. We don't ask judges to define an electron or an axial compressor rotor, or literally anything else that may be the subject of litigation. We leave that up to scientists, engineers, and mechanics, which is why we ask them to testify in such cases to provide their expert advice. The same thing is true of "woman." It's a biologist's job to define what a woman is, not someone who practices law. She was right to give the response she did. What you're is missing here is that if there was a case brought to the Supreme Court that involved defining a "woman" (Title III, Title VII, Title IX, or whatever), then more than likely an expert's opinion will be sought. You seem to think that judges should be jacks-of-all-trades, when in fact that has never been the case throughout all of American legal history.
    1
  14. Biden can nominate whoever he wants. Anyone crying foul that he's selecting on the basis of immutable characteristics better not lean Republican. Ronald Reagan specifically selected the first female nominee to the Supreme Court (Sandra Day O'Connor), his successor George H.W. Bush replaced the first African-American Justice (Thurgood Marshall) with Clarence Thomas, and just over a year ago President Trump made a shortlist of female judges to fill Ruth Bader Ginsberg's seat, ultimately deciding on Amy Coney Barrett. Well, two can play at that game.
    1
  15. Biden can nominate whoever he wants. Anyone crying foul that he's selecting on the basis of immutable characteristics better not lean Republican. Ronald Reagan specifically selected the first female nominee to the Supreme Court (Sandra Day O'Connor), his successor George H.W. Bush replaced the first African-American Justice (Thurgood Marshall) with Clarence Thomas, and just over a year ago President Trump made a shortlist of female judges to fill Ruth Bader Ginsberg's seat, ultimately deciding on Amy Coney Barrett. Well, two can play at that game.
    1