Brown Jackson, Clarence Thomas, Jackson Brown, and the SCROTUS joke

Posted On: Friday - March 25th 2022 5:10AM MST
In Topics: 
  Music  US Feral Government  Race/Genetics  Legal Stupidity  Morning Constitutional

As usual, Peak Stupidity does not pretend to keep up with current events, but just to monitor the general stupidity level. For example, though I know this Jackson Brown Broad is the nominee for the Supreme Court Justice to replace retiring lefty and 1994 Bill Clinton pick Stephen Breyer. I know there's the usual political battle going on about the confirmation, with the GOP, per their M.O., putting on the kid gloves, I don't care to follow the details, and I know she'll sail through.

Now, we hate to jump to conclusions here, so we'll put our conclusion at the bottom with no link, errr so we can only say with 90% certainty that someone who looks like this is going to be "voting"* left-wing.

K. Brown Jackson. Tell you what, if she learns the US Constitution, I'll learn how to write her first name.

This Brown Jackson character was a law clerk for the man she is to replace. One might reckon this will be a wash, politics-wise. I don't know about that. Did you SEE the picture? She will likely be as left-wing as anyone we've seen (it always goes in that direction), but additionally she'll have no regard for the Constitution when it comes to anything really important, like Blackety-blackety-black.

This is a big deal because the SCROTUS members are in there for as long as they want to be, or till the very edge of death, as with that Ginsburg chick. That is due to the fact that our country has pretty much forgotten that almost any politician can be recalled or impeached. Don't kid yourself, most of the black-robed crowd are politicians foremost. That's a powerful position to be in, getting together and striking down laws stone cold or ruling that the latest encroachment on Liberty is perfectly within the bounds of the Constitution, when any major dude on the street could tell you otherwise, my friend.

An example of one of the questions of Constitutionality the confirmation battle will include is Affirmative Action. My concern it thus: Why is anyone discussing whether Affirmative Action is Constitutional? You’d have to be a moron or a liar to say it is.

As much as I don’t think much of any of the SCROTUS judges other than Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, all of them can read well enough to see that there’s nothing in the Constitution or any of its Amendments, even the worst of them, to allow AA. The Feral Gov’t should have no say in the matter to begin with per Amendment X, which is one sentence long! So, we’ve had, and we’ve got, a bunch of robed liars.

Therefore, we know it’s all political. Mr. Steve Sailer, always big into University credentials, test scores, and such, has written a number of posts on whether this Brown Jackson Board is the best qualified. He's by far not the only one worried about "qualifications". OK, first, no. When you confine your pick to a black woman, no you obviously won't get the best qualified, for obvious reasons. However, do those LSAT scores, grades, and experience have any thing to do with being "qualified" for SCROTUS member anyway?

Think about it. Why would we need the best and brightest? It’s a worthless endeavor to worry about it, unless you think US Constitution 2.0, the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s (as per Christopher Caldwell), will be thrown out before some of these people die. Being the smartest justice in the room doesn't make on the best justice or even a good one. That is, not if it's about politics rather than Constitutionality. Being the "most qualified" and on the left would make one the worst possible SCROTUS members for the American people and the Constitution.

Then, way over on not just the other hand, but way over on the sane side of the country, we have this guy, nominated by George H. W. Bush in 1991, and confirmed after 99 days of trouble.

Clarence Thomas, Peak Stupidity's pick for "Best of SCROTUS":

We got really, really lucky with this guy. The latest news is that he is still in the hospital from an infection. I remember when first hearing about his illness that he would be back SCROTUSing in a couple of days. It's been a few days longer now. Peak Stupidity wishes Mr. Thomas a speedy recovery and a long career still.

I mentioned that 99 day confirmation process back 30 1/2 years ago. That was an attempted derailment of Judge Thomas' confirmation by the ctrl-left, as they had an inkling that this guy was going to use the US Constitution in his job, alas! Anita Hill, a former Attorney-Advisor and then Assistant to judge Thomas was used in this attempted derailment, but our post title does not refer to any pubic hair in Coke jokes.**

Instead, the title of this post refers to the Supreme Court being a joke in that its purpose no longer seems to be that specified by the Founders, reading the Constitution and seeing if laws comply with it.

Finally, there is one more guy mentioned in the title. Peak Stupidity maintains that we would much rather have Jackson Brown than Brown Jackson, for any position like that available right now on the SCROTUS. (Otherwise, it's Rock, Paper, Scissors for your Supreme Court Justice.)

Jackson Brown, the 1970s Los Angeles scene music artist, is just 3 months older than Clarence Thomas, and is more qualified than Brown Jackson by my definition. What'd he say again about SCROTUS decisions or was it about drugs) in the back of the tour bus rollin' down I-95 out of Portland, Maine? "It takes a clear mind to make it." Indeed.

Here's what Jackson Brown, not Brown Jackson, had to say about things half a century ago:

I have wandered through this world,
and as each moment has unfurled,
I've been waiting
to awaken from this dream.

People go just where they will.
I never notice them until
I got this feeling
that's it's later than it seems.

Doctor, my eyes, tell me what is wrong.
Was I unwise to leave them open for so long?

Doctor, My Eyes is from Jackson Brown's self-titled debut album of1972.

* "Voting" is in quotes, because that term kind of misses the point of the Supreme Court. They should be simply looking at the Constitution, highlighting the appropriate passages, such as Amendment X (probably the go-to passage 90% of the time), and explaining how a law is not Constitutional, and occasionally how it IS. If you disagree, you hash it out amongst yourselves and get it right!

** That was a part of the sexual harassment allegations brought on by the women who was supposedly harassed but went ahead and followed Clarence Thomas to a 2nd job afterwards.

Al Corrupt
Friday - March 25th 2022 7:19PM MST

“ Tell you what, if she learns the US Constitution, I'll learn how to write her first name.”

I prefer to call her Jumanji Jackson. Pretty easy to remember.
Friday - March 25th 2022 4:10PM MST
PS: Well, there is this whole 'intersex' thing, that afflicts somewhere between one in a thousand to one in a million depending on one's definition.

But. An exception does not invalidate the truth.

To ignore the normal in favor of the abnormal is the sign of the times.
The Alarmist
Friday - March 25th 2022 12:56PM MST

Remember when scientists had previously identified persons with two x chromosomes as being female.

Welcome to the Scientistry®️, the new & improved science all about the profession of science regardless of the truth, facts, and evidence.
Adam Smith
Friday - March 25th 2022 12:20PM MST
PS: Good afternoon, Gentlemen,

“Scientists, gender law scholars and philosophers of biology said Jackson's response was commendable, though perhaps misleading. It's useful, they say, that Jackson suggested science could help answer Blackburn's question, but they note that a competent biologist would not be able to offer a definitive answer either. Scientists agree there is no sufficient way to clearly define what makes someone a woman...”

Friday - March 25th 2022 8:25AM MST
PS: You beat my by seconds, Mr. Blanc.

Can't argue with any of it, though I'll add that that quarter century will outlast this country. (Or it'll resemble a scene from "Idiocracy".
Friday - March 25th 2022 8:19AM MST
PS: In other words, she's a light weight in the field of depravity? So, there's that.. . Fine. Confirmed with prejudice.

Yeah, Disney you mean - I haven't given them a penny in 30 or 40 years. I gotta admit that's mostly about prices, but our family is all on-board with "no, we're NOT going to Disney Land!" for cultural reasons too.

Then you've got Big Biz and Big Gov telling us all to be on the look-out for these Human Traffickers, while "our" President proceeds to conduct this very practice in the middle of the night.
Friday - March 25th 2022 8:19AM MST
PS Not to put too fine a point on it, she’s anti-white and therefore she’s anti-American. One could have expected nothing else from the anti-white, anti-American party. Unless at least a handful of anti-white, anti-American party senators become unavailable to vote*, she’s going to sit on the Supreme Court for a quarter century or so, writing (or having written or her) anti-white, anti-American opinions.

* That is, more than the number of Stupid Party senators who will jump into the breach to bail out the anti-white, anti-American party.
The Alarmist
Friday - March 25th 2022 5:49AM MST

Where’s some guy named Lamont Hill to tell us stories KBJ bring him Coke®️ cans with pubic hairs and pulling all-night rape trains?

The best they could do is that she’s easy on kiddie-porn recidivists, and in a country where the Devil Mouse can protest widely against anti-child-grooming laws while raking in tens of billions on products aimed at children with no impact to their top line, it is clear Americans no longer have a problem with kiddie porn.
WHAT SAY YOU? : (PLEASE NOTE: You must type capital PS as the 1st TWO characters in your comment body - for spam avoidance - or the comment will be lost!)