Dial H for Homicide? MSNBC Commentator Accuses Sen. Hawley of Trying To Murder Judge Jackson


In the movie “Dial M for Murder,” the character Mark Halliday explained how he writes about murders: “I usually put myself in the criminal’s shoes and then I keep asking myself, uh, what do I do next?” He admitted, however, that “I’m afraid my murders would be something like my bridge: I’d make some stupid mistake and never realize it until I found everybody was looking at me.”

That appears to be the fate of MSNBC commentator and the Nation’s Justice Correspondent Elie Mystal, who recently accused Sen. Josh Hawley of trying to kill Supreme Court nominee Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. His weapon: a question about her prior legal positions.

Hawley and others have criticized the record of Judge Jackson as soft on crime, including child pornography. He noted that she recommended eliminating the five-year minimum sentence for child pornography. Hawley was criticized for conflating all sexual offenders with the issue on the sentencing of child pornography defendants. However, Jackson can easily address any such generalization in her own testimony.

Mystal saw not senatorial interest but homicidal intent in such questions. He declared on MSNBC that Hawley is “trying to get [Judge Jackson] killed.”

Hawley’s murderous plot was due to his interest in Jackson’s record on the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Without any push back from the host Tiffany Cross, Mystal explained that just discussing Jackson’s positions on sentencing is an effort to have her murdered: “What Josh Hawley is doing. Let’s be very clear. What Josh Hawley is doing when he tries to do this is he’s trying to get her killed. He is trying to get violence done against a Supreme Court nominee.”

Apparently in the spirit of resisting such violence, Mystal added that Jackson’s greatest challenge will be not “punching one of these fools in the mouth.”

Mystal may not be what Jackson is looking for in a public ally.  Mystal has a long controversial history, including racially inflammatory comments. In promoting a new book, Mystal has called the U.S. Constitution “trash” and argued that we should ideally just dump it.

Mystal previously stated that white, non-college-educated voters supported Republicans because they care about “using their guns on Black people and getting away with it.” He has also lashed out at “white society” and explained how he strived to maintain a “whiteness free” life in the pandemic.

Once Mystal labels you a racist, it does not matter even if a story is untrue. Mystal, who has written for Above the Law, joined his colleague Joe Patrice in attacking high school student Nicholas Sandmann, the teenager wrongly accused of attacking a Native American. Sandmann received settlements from news organizations over the false story. Nevertheless, Mystal and Patrice continued to attack him for wearing his “racist [MAGA] hat” and said that this “17-year-old kid makes the George Zimmerman defense for why he was allowed to deny access to a person of color.” Putting aside the fact that Sandmann was not “deny[ing] access to a person of color,”  Mystal and Patrice were comparing this high school student defending himself from a false story to a man who was accused of murdering an unarmed African American kid.

It does not take much to trigger such attacks. Patrice has written in Above the Law that it is racist to even note that Jackson’s judicial philosophy is not clear from her record. This would seem uncontroversial since Jackson has only one appellate opinion and her trial decisions are not very useful in highlighting her approach to constitutional interpretation. Indeed, Jackson refused to answer questions about her judicial philosophy when she recently was nominated for her appellate position. Nevertheless, Patrice insisted that such questions are little more than calling her a “lesser Black woman.”

That brings us back to Sen. Hawley’s effort, according to Mystal, to murder a Supreme Court nominee.

Mystal explained “We know this because when these people go off, making these claims about child pornography, we know that some of their people show up violently to do stuff,” a reference to the 2017 Pizzagate conspiracy theory and Edgar Maddison Welch. He then made a bizarre conspiracy-like connection, noting that Hawley knows what “Pizzagate is all about” because Jackson was the judge that sentenced Welch.

That type of logic makes “six degrees from Kevin Bacon” look like a DNA test. Yet, it is all fair game on MSNBC to show that raising a nominee’s actual record is a homicidal plot.

Yet, Cross said that it is “quite rich to hear some of the things [Republicans are] suggesting” as opposed to the guest who just made a murder-by-confirmation claim.

Just take a ride on this crazy train. Hawley is trying to get Jackson killed by raising her positions on sentencing because (1) he is alleging that she is soft on crimes like child pornography; (2) Pizzagate involved claims of child sex-trafficking; (3) an unhinged man was convicted for brandishing a gun outside of the pizzeria; and (4) Jackson sentenced the man. Got it?

Under Mystal’s logic, Republicans could object that Democratic senators were trying to murder Amy Coney Barrett when they alleged that she was being put on the Court to help rig the election for Trump. After all, GOP Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., and other members of Congress were shot by James Hodgkinson, 66, a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders and avid watcher of MSNBC, I-Vt. Hodgkinson was vehemently anti-Trump and “we know that some of their people show up violently to do stuff.”

Likewise, there are other topics that have led to violence. For example, an anti-fascist, anti-Trump activist firebombed an immigration center in Texas. Under Mystal’s logic, asking Judge Jackson about her decisions on immigration could be viewed as inviting such a violent response.

So the solution, according to Mystal, is not to ask a judicial nominee about her legal views. The senators may be interested in the answers for their own deliberations, but the choice is between debate and death in the United States Senate.

Of course, as the detective in “Dial M for Murder” noted, murder is too serious a subject to be left to writers: “They talk about flat-footed policemen. May the saints protect us from the gifted amateur.”


157 thoughts on “Dial H for Homicide? MSNBC Commentator Accuses Sen. Hawley of Trying To Murder Judge Jackson”

  1. It is Wednesday evening. Justice Thomas is STILL hospitalized. He was admitted last Friday with an infection that they said he’d be released and home in two days.

    They are going to take him out. The Democrats are desperate to seize power before their party is obliterated in the November ’22 elections.

    Pray for Justice Thomas. They are going to kill him.

  2. Why don’t we try to trip Ketanji up by questioning line by line going through Ketanji’s high school yearbook to find out what all the teenage messages may really “mean”….

    Is she really a woke, progressive social justice activist?

    Oh yes, she really is.

    She would not define “woman”….of course not…..but she is proud to be the first black “woman”…..

    Goodbye freedom and liberty-loving America. We had a good run.

  3. The Nation. Pretty much says it all: the flagship publication for insane communists. Whatever measure of sanity that rag ever had left when Stephen Cohen died.

  4. Jonathan: Defending Senators Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley seems a full time job for you. You are probably just envious that the Nation;s Elie Mystal gets so much attention over at MSNBC. Cotton, Hawley and Ted Cruz came out of their right-wing corners at yesterdays’ first day of hearings on Judge Jackson’s confirmation doing a lot of shadow boxing but landing no blows. There was a barely noticed comment by Cruz during his opening statement that caught my attention. After lamenting that SC nominations have become controversial in recent years, especially involving Brett Kavanaugh, Cruz said: “Supreme Court confirmations were not always controversial. In fact Bushrod Washington was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1798 and was confirmed the very next day”. Bushrod Washington? I never heard of him so I had to look up his bio. Turns out Bushrod served on the Court from 1798 to 1829. His nomination was not particularly controversial because, like many in the Senate, Bushrod was a slaveholder–the nephew of George Washington. He inherited his slaves from his aunt, Martha Washington, upon her death in 1802. Bushrod was not happy when he learned his slaves could be freed upon his death. He founded the American Colonization Society which sought to send Black people back to Africa. When slaves tried to escape from shipment back to Africa Bushrod sold 54 of them to another slaveholder in Louisiana.

    By today’s standards Bushrod’s nomination would be impossible or highly “controversial” to say the least. By 1798 standards he was a shoe-in. Even if Bushrod had, like Kavanaugh, been accused of sexual harassment or assault his nomination would likely have sailed through because it is hard to imagine a victim stepping forward to complain. Women had no rights back then that men were obligated to recognize. It is likely Ted Cruz would have joined those who voted promptly to confirm Washington because he promptly voted to confirm Kavanaugh despite the credible allegations of sexual misconduct. Ted would have fitted in well in the Senate of 1798 but he definitely has a blind spot when it comes to SC nominees. Perhaps even by todays’ standards Cruz thinks a Black woman doesn’t deserve a position on the SC. Cruz belongs in the late 18th century. Where is the time machine when we need it?!

    1. There were no “credible allegations” of misconduct, sexual or otherwise.

      1. There were plenty of allegations. Problem was republicans were limiting investigations into the allegations to a very narrow scope AND refused to allow actual witnesses to testify.

            1. So, why were the Republicans afraid to let the witnesses against Kavanaugh testify? Don’t the people have a right to know? The Republicans were afraid that witnesses would bolster Dr. Ford’s testimony, thus making it harder to attack her as a liar with an agenda.

              1. When Democrats hold back evidence for so long it becomes stale and useless. Then, when Ford’s own witnesses can’t back her up, it’s time to lock the door and go to bed.

              2. Ford mentioned four friends/witnesses who were allegedly with her on that fateful evening at the house party. NONE of them substantiated her claims. Not one. Not even her bestie, who Ford said was WITH HER at the house party, also not her family, not anyone. Ford is a paid off sociopath and liar. Clearly.

                1. Ford’s friend said she didn’t recall the party but believed Ford. More to the point: whether one found Ford herself credible or not is a matter of opinion, and similarly for Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh clearly lied about other things, here are some examples: https://jonathanturley.org/2022/03/21/dial-h-for-homicide-msnbc-commentator-accuses-sen-hawley-of-trying-to-murder-judge-jackson/comment-page-1/#comment-2168095 His own calendar showed a party with the 3 boys Ford named. I think Kavanaugh is clearly a liar. But as I said: whether the allegations were credible is matter of opinion, and people obviously have different opinions about it.

                  1. ATS, you are such a putz. You say, “Kavanaugh clearly lied about other things” and refer us to an old post you wrote. Do you know what the word ‘clearly’ means? I suspect not because the word ‘it’ was used numerous times in your claims. But, do your statements using the word ‘it’ clearly tell us what ‘it’ is? No, that is what makes you such a putz and a liar.

                    Your proof almost always includes things that are not proven, are indefinite, are based on what others may have said though their recollections are based on memories and prepping to provide an answer that isn’t really an answer.

                    It is despicable how you will slander people, including our host Professor Turley. This blog is a free speech zone so that no one will stop you, but no one will stop anyone from calling you what you are, a putz and a liar.

                    1. ATS, it is clear you can’t handle the facts and need to quote out of context while lying. You are a putz. Based on your reply, you recognize you have no rational response.

    2. A black woman doesn’t “deserve a position” on the SC just because she’s black and a woman. But that’s the criteria for Biden selecting her: skin color first, gender second, qualifications and record, last.. She is an affirmative action selection. Biden explicitly said so.

      1. KBJ is clearly qualified for the position. Perhaps you haven’t looked at her background and aren’t listening to her responses at the hearing.

        1. I have. I am not overly impressed with her intellectual capacity. Very average. Another second rate intellect, like Sotomayor, is on the way to the SC, sadly.

          Biden put her blackness FIRST.

          It’s like when someone refers to a “disabled person” instead of “person with disabilities” or “Down syndrome baby” instead of “baby with Down syndrome.” They are putting the disability before the person. Biden did this by calling KBJ a ‘black woman justice’ instead of ‘a justice who is a black woman.’

          She is Biden’s affirmative action pick. It is a shame how he handled it (for KBJ’s sake) and the country will pay the price. Just as we have with Kamala Harris.

          1. I’m very impressed with the LACK of intellectual capacity and overt racism demonstrated by members of the Cult of Trump who believe whatever slop is served on the Hate Network. And, you don’t speak for “we” the people, either. All of your criticism of Kamala Harris, Judge Jackson and Justice Sotomayor is motivated by your racism and ignorance. That’s what really is sad about America. We speak of our values and claim that we stand for the proposition that all people are created equal, but the Cult of Trump doesn’t agree. You disciples fall for anything, literally, that comes of his mouth, including praise for a murderer like Putin. The extent to which Trump has divided America by his Big Lie is truly stunning. He just keeps on lying, and no amount of evidence that the Big Lie is untrue even fazes his fans.

            1. “All of your criticism of Kamala Harris, Judge Jackson and Justice Sotomayor is motivated by your racism and ignorance.”

              No, actually it is not. Most people wanted them all to suceed –for the good of the country, the good of the collective. The criticism is motivated by their OBVIOUS lack of skill, talent, or intellectual capacity to do the jobs they were given primarily because of their “identity as” Latina, Black, Woman. They are not living UP to the hype. The whole world can see it.

        2. Ruling by emotional/social/ideological views and not constitutional law, makes her “NOT SCOTUS” material.

          Favoring sentences for kiddie diddlers is proof she is not ready for the big leagues.

        3. Are YOU listening to her responses at the hearing?

          ‘My bad, Sen. Cruz, I answered the way I did because I thought you were talking about PUBLIC schools.’

          I’m not impressed. She is a lightweight. She was squirming in her seat, SO offended FINALLY being pressed on her record. As if.

          Every Republican should pull a play out of Dem playbook and vote NO in lock step. Let the Dems and their media slime howl all they want.

          1. You shouldn’t lie and put something in quotation marks that she didn’t say.

            1. KBJ shouldn’t lie about her knowledge and understanding of CRT. She is flatout lying. Not a good start for a SC nominee.

                1. Is it not obvious?

                  She stated that she can’t tell if CRT is taught in the private school curriculum she oversees as a board member. That was a lie. She corrected her initial answer given to Sen. Cruz only AFTER he presented evidence that yes, it *is taught* in the Georgetown private school on which she sits on the board. Her initial answer was a blatant lie.

                  She had to backtrack saying that she thought he meant “public schools.” Another lie.

                  She also answered that she has never studied Critical Race Theory. That is a lie.

                  She stated that she isn’t familiar with the work of Ibram Kendi. Another blatant lie.

                  1. “She stated …”

                    No, she didn’t. You’re not quoting HER. Instead, you repeatedly present YOUR own statements, pretending that they’re what she said.

                    Your words are not her words.

                    1. ATS, after hearing the garbage from you about Ford and Kavanaugh, are we to believe what you say?

                      That would be crazy.

                    2. Then you tell us, what exactly did she say re her familiarity with Kendi’s work?

                      No matter what words you use, she lied. She is lying, hedging, fudging, avoiding, obfuscating….whatever you want to call it, she is being less than honest, less than transparent, less than forthcoming.

                      The lack of clarity about what she believes, how she thinks, defines, evaluates, etc is how we know she is not telling the truth.

                      When someone tells the truth, there is clarity. We do not have that here with KBJ. The country will pay the price.

        4. Judge Jackson is the MOST qualified person ever to be nominated to the SCOTUS. There have been others equally qualified, but none who are better qualified. She is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School. She has served as a public defender and has been in private practice.

          There are literally tens of thousands, maybe more, of possible candidates Biden could have nominated to the SCOTUS, and several thousand of them were black women. He decided to limit his search to black women. And, you, Anonymous, aren’t qualified to comment on the hierarchy of criteria Biden used to make his selection. You are just parroting lies you heard on alt-right media.

          1. No, I’m commenting on what is obvious to most. She is lying in her testimony, she is a lightweight intellect, and she is an unfortunate affirmative action selection. Her PD and trial court experience is nearly meaningless for the position she is being elevated into. And the country will pay the price for it.

          2. “Judge Jackson is the MOST qualified person ever to be nominated to the SCOTUS.”

            No, she is not.

    3. That was a name back then? Bushrod? The memes and innuendo would be endless in this day and age.

      I don’t ever remember our first president being regarded as a slave holder during history in grade school.

    4. Got raped by Jackson in high school. How do I get to testify at her confirmation hearings?

  5. This is how we take our institutions back from the radical progressive leftists intent on destroying them: In a major victory for free speech, a federal judge ruled on March 11th that officials at the University of North Texas can be held personally responsible for firing a professor because they did not like his political opinions.

    In his 69-page order of March 11, Judge Sean Jordan, of the United States District Court for Eastern Texas, found that university officials should have known that math professor Nathaniel Hiers’ speech “touched on a matter of public concern and that discontinuing his employment because of his speech violated the First Amendment,” before they fired him for going public with his disagreement with the left-wing concept of “microaggressions.”

    The university was claiming qualified immunity for school officials in the case, meaning that the school wanted its officials to be excluded from being held responsible for their actions merely because they were acting in their position as state employees. Jordan denied the claim of qualified immunity and also denied the school’s demand to have the case dismissed outright.
    Like the first trickles of water over the top of a collapsing dam, Americans are taking their country back from the grips of the failed progressive political experiment.

  6. According to the Fake News Daily, which has a record of accuracy at least as good as–if not better than–any mainstream media outlet, “the following Soros-backed organizations have contributed to various Democrats and RINOs in exchange for backing Jackson’s SCOTUS nomination: the APA (American Pedophile Association), the CPS (Child Porn Society), the PRPD (Prison Reform for Perverts and Deviants), and the RCSOI (Reparations for Convicts & Sex Offenders International). Since the IRS has deemed each of those organizations to be 501(c)(3) nonprofits, all contributions are tax-deductible. When questioned about the legitimacy of their 501(c)(3) status, given their political payoffs made to Democrats and RINOs, unnamed attorneys representing those organizations said that ‘no payments were made directly to any politicians, and that if any funds found their way into the hands of poiticians, the payments would have been strictly unofficial under-the-table payments.'”

  7. Even conservatives who oppose KBJ’s confirmation are condemning Hawley’s attack as dishonest:

    Senator Hawley’s Disingenuous Attack against Judge Jackson’s Record on Child Pornography
    “I would oppose Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson because of her judicial philosophy, for the reasons outlined by Ed Whelan last week. I address that in a separate post. For now, I want to discuss the claim by Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.) that Judge Jackson is appallingly soft on child-pornography offenders. The allegation appears meritless to the point of demagoguery. …”

    1. “Even conservatives who oppose KBJ’s confirmation are condemning Hawley’s attack”

      Conservatives do not mindlessly walk in lockstep like the Nazis or the leftists. Try thinking for yourself sometime.

  8. Bill Barr is shocked that Biden lied about Hunter’s laptop.

    So a fat toad and a stupid toad.

    Of course Joe lied.

    Nobody watching could possibly expect anything else from Joe.

    The Arabs won’t even take his phone calls. I wouldn’t either.

  9. If someone was viewing child pornography, that means at some point children were egregiously abused in the chain, period, whatever the perp’s ‘motivations’ might have been. That there appears to not be a SINGLE dissenting voice in this regard from the left has written them off for me, and for all time.

    This is not hypothetical, it happens everyday. The next time you see your young kids or grand kids, imagine it was them, and see if you can still be so hypothetically sanctimonious. Kids cannot advocate or represent on their own behalf. It is profoundly disturbing that this appointee could be so callous about such matters. You may as well be saying ‘Lolita Island’ was a great, frivolous place. And that would contradict even the faux anti-Trumpism.

    Anyone that thinks this is somehow ‘ok’ while purporting to uphold human decency or a notion of human rights is a hypocrite and a coward. And it is all a matter of PUBLIC RECORD, not hearsay based on a high school yearbook picture and a not-entirely-remembered-accurately account of drunken debauchery on some night, of which even the date is in dispute.

    There is a line in the sand here: decide which side of it you are on, because in these matters – there is no going back. You don’t hurt kids and then think it might be acceptable. Period. If she isn’t a sociopath, then she is either so on the spectrum she needs someone else to make sure she has clean underwear, or so ignorant that I can’t fathom how she got through college.

    1. I’m on the left. I want possessors of child porn prosecuted. But I also think that the people who sexually abuse kids and produce the porn should be treated more harshly than those who are not themselves abusing kids. That’s the stance of pretty much all judges: that some criminals should be treated more harshly than others, depending on their actual crimes. (Why) is that stance objectionable?

      FWIW, given the extent to which technology can be used to create fakes (fake videos, fake photos), it need no longer be the case that “If someone was viewing child pornography, that means at some point children were egregiously abused in the chain, period.” I assume that it can be created artificially just like other images.

  10. The reason the Left want her was articulated by the CRT Race Baiter himself.


    Here’s How Black People Could Use Jury Nullification To Break The Justice System
    Jury nullification is a surgical strike on an illegitimate justice system that has failed us.

    December 7, 2016

    Maybe it’s time minorities got in the game?

    Black people lucky enough to get on a jury could use that power to acquit any person charged with a crime against white men and white male institutions. It’s not about the race of the defendant, but if the alleged victim is a white guy, or his bank, or his position, or his authority: we could acquit. Assault? Acquit. Burglary? Acquit. Insider trading? Acquit.

    Murder? … what the hell do you think is happening to black people out here? What the hell do you think we’re complaining about when your cops shoot us or choke us? Acquit. Don’t throw “murder” at me like it’s some kind of moral fault line where the risk of letting one go is too great. Black people ARE BEING MURDERED, and the system isn’t doing a damn thing to hold their killers accountable. Sorry I’m not sorry if this protest idea would put the shoe on the other foot for a change.

  11. Biden, the OLD and mentally fragile white guy trying (for the 3rd time) to be USA president, needed a boost during one of the 2020 debates. So, advised by a black male member of the House of Representatives during a break in the debate to do so, he made this pledge – to be a racist and a sexist, while appealing to voters who make their choices in the same FOOLish way. No “white” lawyers or judges need apply; no males, either.

        1. She’s a quota filler. She has nothing to contribute of heft anymore than Sotomayor does.
          Let the Republicans do what Biden/Ted Kennedy did to Clarence Thomas: a lynching. Should be fun

        2. You think that white men were the only ones competent to serve for almost 180 years? You think that Thurgood Marshall magically became qualified in 1967 but wasn’t qualified in 1965 when Fortas was nominated? You think it’s a coincidence that Republican nominees have with a single exception been Christian?

          There’s more than one person who is competent to serve. KBJ is one of a number of people who are competent to serve.

          1. Oh for Christ’s sake. Would you rather have Godless atheists on the court?

            KBJ was one of a number of Black Women on a short list. She’s the one who said yes. And ‘competent’ is a very low bar for a lifteime SC appointment.

            1. I’d rather have a mix of religious beliefs on the court over time, including Muslims, Hindus, atheists, agnostics, …, not just Christians and Jews.

              mistressadams is the one who introduced “competence to serve.” I was just responding to what she introduced. If you think “‘competent’ is a very low bar for a lifteime SC appointment,” complain to her, not me.

      1. And?
        You have never worked in a job with all women have you? Woman bosses, women colleagues, women underlings. Because IF you had, you would know it is NOT a good thing to have all women around you in the workplace. It is awful. Nor is it a ‘good thing’ to have more women (because ‘gender equity’ bullsh*t) on the highest court in the land.


    Oh, she’s sick alright!

    You can’t be seriously considering an antithetical, anti-Constitutional, anti-American radical, with foreign allegiances, who commiserates with the worst, most repugnant and reprehensible criminals in America.

    That’s what Joe Biden is (commiserating with reprehensible criminal Hunter Biden) and look what he’s done to America and the world.

    – Judge Jackson said she found the “category of nonsexually motivated child pornography offenders” to be “just so interesting.”

    – Judge Jackson theorized there “could be a less-serious child pornography offender” whose “motivation is the challenge” while “they aren’t necessarily that interested in the child pornography piece of it.”

    – Judge Jackson said she had “mistakingly [sic.] assumed that child pornography offenders are pedophiles” and wanted to “understand this category of nonpedophiles who obtain child pornography”

    “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

    – Barack Hussein Obama

    Translation: We hates America; we want all of America’s money and all of America.

    America says, “Go right ahead, give it all to ’em!”

    What the —- are you thinking, America?

  13. Judge Jackson’s race and gender are immaterial. Her personal identity experiences have absolutely no bearing on applying the Constitution or statute. She might feel sympathy for a cause or a case, but that should never color her interpretation of the law or Constitution as it is written. Her experience as a public defender is more relevant than what she looks like. Only a few years ago, there was a furor over Trump objecting to a judge presiding over class action lawsuits over illegal immigration, based on his membership in La Raza Lawyers Association. That association has supported pro-illegal alien groups in the past. There was outrage at the concern that a judge be held to the same bias standards as, say, a juror. Yet, Democrats overtly claim that Judge Jackson would inform her decisions based on her race and gender. Which is it?

    Politicians, activists, and pundits are doing Judge Jackson a disservice by focusing on the central importance of her race and gender. That’s racial and gender discrimination. It seeds the idea that she only got the nomination because of what she looked like, rather than merit, which would forever undermine her accomplishments.

    Joe Biden should never have pledged to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court. He should have simply made a short list and selected the best one based on his or her judicial philosophy, record, area of expertise in practicing law, public writings and statements, number of times overturned, and other metrics.

    If you had to undergo brain surgery, would you care about what your neurosurgeon looked like, or their skill and patient outcome record? Why should SCOTUS be any different? Are we going to take identity politics all the way, and demand that SCOTUS have trans, gay, black, lesbian, Middle Eastern, and Pacific Islander justices, overlooking merit entirely? When was the last time there was a Pacific Islander Justice? If identity and victim intersectionality are all that matter, shouldn’t the next appointee be a Pacific Islander trans Muslim in order to check the most boxes?

    People. Diversity is not skin deep.

    1. How about a Constitution-respecting lawyer to begin with — not a couched radical pushed along by the American-hating obama.

Comments are closed.