Talk:Ketanji Brown Jackson Supreme Court nomination

Question about the Lead

Hi everyone, I was reading over this article, and it describes Judge Jackson would be the the first "cisgender black woman to serve on the Supreme Court." While the sentence is accurate, I don't see the need to mention her gender identity in the sentence. Seeing as no Black woman, regardless of gender identity, has ever served on the SCOTUS, do we need to include it? I have no qualms whatsoever with leaving it as it is, but I feel that it makes the sentence a bit too wordy and it's removal wouldn't negatively impact the quality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valkurite (talk • contribs) 02:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been able to identify a sentence describing her as a "cisgender black woman". Maybe, it was there earlier today? Nonetheless, I agree it would be innapropriate describing her in this manner. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That's odd, the description was in the lead when I made the post, but isn't there anymore. Either way, it doesn't really matter unless someone puts it back, at which point we can open the discussion again. Valkurite (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I edited/combined the prior sentence that she is the first Black woman nominee plus added 2 additional cited sources. If confirmed, we can replace with the new achievement instead of putting both nominee and justice. Asr1014 (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree - leave "cisgender" off.

History2049 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Republican smears

I wonder whether it is worthwhile to add a paragraph about Republian pedophile smears. Republican senators focused a lot on promulgating debunked misinformation regarding Judge Jackson and pedophelia. An intense amount of time was spent on this. It was taken up in right-wing conspiracy circles. Here are a couple of references. Given the prominence of this misinformation in the hearings, I think a bit more mention could be warranted. --M.boli (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

It could be. Given the sensitive nature of those smears, we'd have to be careful about what we would say. I'd propose that you (or someone else) propose specific text to add, with those RS, and we can see if we can get a consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Simply using the term "smear" implies bias in the other direction. Republicans contention regarding...etc. It is best to write neutral when presenting information. 108.18.157.185 (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

That's why I said we need to be careful and suggested we review language here before it goes in. In hindsight, I should not have echoed that word here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

You cant even spell right. Check yourself before you start spreading your own biases. You dont get to determine what is a smear, that belongs to the reader 72.235.8.165 (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Here is what I put in at Josh_Hawley#U.S._Supreme_Court_nominations (there are 9 references, removed for readability). Maybe it would be a starting point? --M.boli (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hawley was sharply critical of Ketanji Brown Jackson's 2022 nomination to the Supreme Court. He promulgated disinformation linking her tenure as a judge and member of the United States Sentencing Commission to pedophilia and "pattern of letting child porn offenders off the hook for their appalling crimes". Multiple independent news media fact-checks disagreed with Hawley's assertions, which were linked to far-right conspiracy theories and QAnon. Conservative former prosecutor and commenter Andrew C. McCarthy wrote, "The allegation appears meritless to the point of demagoguery." Nevertheless Hawley and other Republican senators focused on the false charges during the confirmation hearings, which gained currency in right-wing online conspiracy theory circles.

Is this news of Susan Collins' support for Jackson's confirmation noteworthy? It is quite the opposite of "Republican smear". FreeMediaKid$ 21:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

It can both be noteworthy that Cruz, Hawley, Blackburn, etc. "smeared" her and that Collins is a yes vote. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

References

KBJ and veteran-counting

@AnubisIbizu: thank you for responding to the problems that arise from adding your sentence to the lede. Making a new section Court's Demographics strikes me as a plausible solution.

However I don't see veteran-counting going on in other justice's articles. When Stephen Breyer was appointed, he replaced non-veteran Harry Blackmun, but Breyer's article doesn't mention that the count of veterans increased by one. From a little google-searching, considering veterans as a demographic category of justices doesn't seem to be well-covered in news media. A 2012 article in the Atlantic counts not the number of veterans, but veterans with combat experience. The reference you added is an op-ed. Outside of interest groups, I'm not seeing much coverage.

By contrast, to pick another demographic category, I see more interest in the religious background of the Supreme Court justices. With Ketanji Brown Jackson the number of Protestants on the court increased by one. Yet this change in religious demographic doesn't seem to have become an issue in her confirmation sufficient to have warranted mention in this Wikipedia article. There is no breathless language about left one sitting Jewish person for the first time in decades. (I am echoing the language of your addition to the article.)

In my edit summary I said that this could be noteworthy in articles on the composition of the Supreme Court and isn't particularly connected to the topic of this article. You haven't answered that. But it's true isn't sufficient to warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Nevertheless it may well be that the veteran-count is a factoid which will interest some readers. And now that this is out of the lede, and in a section on demographic factoids, I still think it is odd to include but I don't feel strongly either way. -- M.boli (talk) 12:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand your point. It is my position that this inclusion is noteworthy because the institution has always had veterans since it began. Now, there is only veteran left in the institution, risking zero depending on the next nomination. This makes the discussion a historical event.

Other institutions have no selective demographic impact, as the Supreme Court has only nine members. The Supreme Court is unique in this way and many other ways, thus the number of veterans in ins ranks is unique.

Furthermore, as the Supreme Court Historical Society has stated, veterans are important in the Supreme Court because military service "provides a special perspective on the intersecting powers of the federal government," and "Justices who have served in the armed forces prior to serving on the Court have additional practical experience in how those powers function.” Again, you have not proven how that is not significant or unique, as is your burden.

Indeed, the Supreme Court itself tracks how many of its members have served in the military.

And KBJ's appointment left one veteran, which hasn't occurred for decades. In addition numerous news articles have discussed this topic, making it of note in the public sphere. See, e.g., 1, 2, 3, 4.

I agree with that it hasn't been discussed in other justices nomination pages, but that it because there was not the risk of no veterans being on the court in the next replacement. AnubisIbizu (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Further, at least one peer-reviewed academic article has discussed how military service impacts the Supreme Court justice's perspectives while on the Court. See, e.g., Diane Marie Amann, John Paul Stevens, Human Rights Judge, 74 Fordham L. Rev. 1569, 1599 (2006),. Specifically with reference to their thoughts on capital punishment.

Another article discussed "how military service may have influenced Justice Stevens's decision-making process." Eugene R. Fidell, Justice John Paul Stevens and Judicial Deference in Military Matters, 43 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 999, 1010 (2010). There is no shortage of decades of articles discussing the impact of military service on Supreme Court justices.

It even discussed on legal blogs

AnubisIbizu (talk) 15:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Keep. I see the statistic as historically significant. Seems like the veteran identity is as significant as race, age, disability, etc., because they are all protected under federal U.S. law. Traynreck (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC) — Traynreck (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Striking edit made by a sockpuppet. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)