----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our posters above, so far......have eschewed offering their bona fides that could give the forum confidence in their own qualifications to judge a Harvard lawyer, SCOTUS clerk, and Federal judge.
So, what we have here, in addition to a failure to persuade, but also a failure to instill confidence in these poster's judgement.
That's not necessairly too harsh of an indictment against them, ......after all being in credible positon to determine the abilities of a Federal judge considered for the SCOTUS...... is rare position.
And these two posters do not, evidently, possess those qualifications.
Nonetheless, we do have access to the judgment of folks who ARE qualified to judge Kitanji Jackson.
And that would be the ABA.
For example:
"On the final day of U.S. Supreme Court confirmation hearings, the American Bar Association said Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson would make an excellent justice, based upon the association's discussions with 2,800 judges and lawyers.
The organization unanimously rated Jackson as "well qualified" to serve on the Supreme Court.
"Everyone we talked to, interviewed, or had substantive contact with uniformly gave the highest praise: brilliant, beyond reproach, first-rate, patient, insightful, impeccable, A+," said Judge Ann Claire Williams, chair of the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And that leaves the forum with two competing views:
A. The first, and clearly the most valuable to us is the ABA's.
-----versus----
B. Two anonymous chatroom posters offering their unqualified opinions under fake names on an internet chatroom.
Tough choice, eh?
