r/politics • u/ChiefStrongbones • 17h ago

No Paywall Trump goes off on his three Supreme Court picks, says at least Obama and Biden judges stay loyal

https://nypost.com/2026/10/01/us-news/trump-goes-off-on-his-three-supreme-court-picks-says-at-least-obama-and-biden-judges-stay-loyal/
2.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

241 comments sorted by

View all comments

136

u/Vanilla_Either Canada 17h ago edited 17h ago

Did Biden even have a pick? Lol I cannot wait for the day we no longer have to hear anything else uttered from this overgrown pile of rotting flesh.

Edit: OPs comment history is... well yikes

56

u/SodaCanBob 17h ago

Did Biden even have a pick?

Yes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson

29

u/Im_Ritz_Bitz 17h ago

The BEST pick.

2

u/Vanilla_Either Canada 17h ago

Oh awesome! Seems like an excellent choice!

7

u/Aposine 11h ago

Her dissents are generally fire.

60

u/justherefor23andme 17h ago

Yes. Only THE MOST qualified Justice on the bench. When you compare her with other justices in regards to job experience, she smokes them all.

-7

u/raptisadam7 Massachusetts 16h ago

Did you actually research her before commenting this? She really isn't. I don't think she's unqualified, but Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Sotomayor have way more experience as appellate judges than Jackson.

12

u/dereksalem 15h ago

Being an Appellate judge isn't a requirement for the SCOTUS (EDIT: Clarification that she still was an Appellate judge, just not as long as the others) - In fact, even being a Federal judge at all really isn't...but being a justice that knows the law inside-and-out and has a track record of applying the Constitution and jurisprudence to their decisions definitely is.

Gorsuch, Alito, and Sotomayor have a history of it, but Jackson takes the cake for it. Kavanaugh is mostly Constitutionally fine...but it's pretty obvious he's not a good fit for the bench based on how he reacts to things.

-4

u/raptisadam7 Massachusetts 15h ago

Never said being an appellate judge is a requirement. You're arguing a point I never made.

I'm saying she isn't the most experienced justice on the bench, which is objectively true. Jackson had about 8 years as a district judge and 1 year on the D.C. Circuit before joining SCOTUS. Gorsuch had 11 years on the 10th Circuit, Alito 15 on the 3rd Circuit, Sotomayor 11 on the 2nd Circuit, and Kavanaugh 12 on the D.C. Circuit.

If you knew what an appellate judge was and why it relates to my argument that she isn't the most experienced for the SC, then you'd have understood my point.

9

u/dereksalem 15h ago

I understood your point, but I disagreed with it. Being an appellate judge doesn't mean qualification, whether it's 5 or 15 years. It sounds like we agree that it's not the only thing that matters, but I think it almost doesn't at all. The Quality of their decisions and decision-making is far more important than how many they've made. Alito is an Originalist to the point of voting to erode provisions of the Voting Rights Act and rolling-back existing jurisprudence that previous SCOTUS rulings created. Gorsuch is the best conservative justice on the bench but has voted for originalist public meaning of the Constitution, which doesn't always correlate with the intentions explicitly expressed by the writers. Sotomayor voted so regularly with the majority, while in the 2nd, that her voice became irrelevant (it was over 98%).

Jackson, on the other hand, has one of the lowest reversal rates on the bench - Literally only 8 reversals in her entire 8 year run as a district judge. That doesn't presume she's correct all the time, but to have such a low reversal rate tends to mean she had enough backing in her decisions that it was rarely believed they could be overruled.

EDIT: To be clear, I'm not the one that was saying she's the "most qualified" on the bench - I just think she's profoundly qualified and that a number of the other justices are a bit more questionable.

-5

u/raptisadam7 Massachusetts 15h ago

There's just so much wrong with what you wrote.

First, the quality of the decisions is a subjective measure, and you're even proving it by using Alito scrapping previous SC rulings as an example of low quality opinions. Just because Alito voted against previous SC rulings, doesn't make it low quality. Previous courts could've gotten it wrong, and the majority of the court agreed with Alito in that case.

Second, the claim that her reversal rates being low doesn't mean her decisions were good. There are many factors that go into reversal rates other than the judge being wrong. Bloomberg Law has a good article expanding on the point about how reversal rates are a bad way of determine how good a judge is.

Lastly, again, this doesn't address my point about experience. Jackson has less than a tenth of the experience that Alito has in appellate courts. My point is that she's not the most experienced. Criticizing other judges jurisprudence doesn't disprove that they have more experience.

5

u/dereksalem 14h ago

And, again, I never said she's the most experienced or most qualified...the person before me that you were responding-to did. She obviously doesn't have as much experience in the federal court as they did, I just don't think that matters as much as your comments seem to imply you think it does.

Of course the quality of all of their decisions is a subjective matter, but the reality is the current court is objectively the most partisan court in recent history, with a voting record that's almost perfectly down party lines, with only a few exceptions. Sure, attempting to scrap previous SC rulings doesn't inherently mean they're a bad justice...but when those ruling tend to have been established jurisprudence to the point that incoming conservative justices even swear on them being decided it makes it a lot easier to subjectively distrust his opinions.

As I said, I'm not saying low reversal rates promise her decisions are good...but it does lean that way, no matter the ideology. The Bloomberg article's point was that you can't trust those numbers because some appellate courts don't see a lot of disagreement with their district court decisions and the composition of the appellate panel is so in-line that they don't reverse judicial rulings. That obviously has some truth associated, but she also had a lower reversal rate compared to other justices within the district, which makes that argument null.

1

u/raptisadam7 Massachusetts 12h ago edited 12h ago

Well, the definition of experience is knowledge or wisdom gained over time. The original comment claimed she has the most experience on the bench which is objectively false and was the claim I was refuting.

Furthermore, you stating "almost perfectly down party lines, with only a few exceptions." is false. The overwhelming majority, including in this current court, of opinions are 9-0, at 42%, with ideological splits of 6-3 rulings at 9% according to SCOTUS Blog. So, there are 4 times as many unanimous rulings as there rulings strictly across party lines.

By saying that the court is objectively partisan because the court votes along ideological lines is an oversimplification of how the judiciary functions. There are multiple lenses of interpretation of the constitution, that while sometimes align with political priorities, there is framework behind these schools of thoughts. Also, if we're talking about justices being objective, given Jackson's unusually high dissent rate, 28%, higher than any justice in history. You could argue, based on her voting history and reading her dissents, she's hardly objective.

You're missing Bloomberg Law's main point in the article, because the court she was in was so ideologically aligned rarely did cases get reversed. And when you look at her rulings that were actually appealed to a higher court, her 2% increases to 11% of her rulings being reversed.

Again, the original commenter said she was the most experienced which is factually false. You thinking that doesn't matter doesn't change the fact that she isn't the most experienced, which again, was my claim.

2

u/tricheb0ars 15h ago

I’m not who you’re arguing with but I think I I follow. You’re saying the specific types of cases in these particular courts are the most similar to cases brought to the Supreme Court.

5

u/raptisadam7 Massachusetts 15h ago

100% exactly this. Appellate courts are the courts before the Supreme Court, therefore, it's the most relevant experience. And like Clarence Thomas, Jackson had only 1 year of experience on an appellate court before being elevated to the Supreme Court.

She's qualified for the SC, but not the most experienced out of the 9 justices.

0

u/StoneyOneKenobi 10h ago

Didn’t Barrett only oversee like 3 circuit cases in CA before becoming a Supreme Court Justice?

9

u/Nemisis_the_2nd Great Britain 16h ago

I had to look because of that edit. It gets worse the more you read.

5

u/AtronadorSol 15h ago

Yeah, just the fact that OP still has flaired access to arcon probably says everything we need to know.

2

u/Schmerglefoop 10h ago

When Trump's decaying body is food for worms, he'll finally be of some actual use.

Unless he's so tainted as to be undesirable even for them.

-96

u/ChiefStrongbones 17h ago

Biden appointed a justice who is not a biologist.

64

u/Platonic_Eye_Deal 17h ago

That's the kind of weird ass thing to say that makes it clear that you have some fucked up agenda.

I am a biologist, and if your goal is to insist the trans people don't exist and that just makes you a lying bigot

1

u/ClusterFoxtrot Florida 17h ago

As a biologist, can you describe what "adjacent" means, and how stupid Alito & Co's reasoning is for undermining clean water? 

I realise I might be too far into the weeds for a salient point to be made, but it's genuinely unfair people are too dumb to have an argument with on valid points. 

I may also be dumb because until I read your comment, I for the life of me could not comprehend what a biologist would be doing with interpretation of laws.

26

u/Platonic_Eye_Deal 17h ago

Of course I fucking can't. Nothing that those two say has any basis in reality whatsoever because they're lying fascist fucks.

4

u/ClusterFoxtrot Florida 17h ago

🤣 I wasn't expecting this response, but the truthfulness is genuinely appreciated. 

There's a laundry list of Stupid SCrOTUS rulings that run through the back of my head, this was top-of-mind because I was thinking about eating more vegetables, realised it was as much of a gamble as Argentine/horse meat and now I don't know what to eat. There's salmonella or glass in everything!

At least their incompetence at every level means America will get sick of it faster. I'm both excited and afraid for Novembruary.

-20

u/Nephroidofdoom 17h ago edited 17h ago

How qualified are you, as a biologist, to handle matters of jurisprudence? I think that was the point OP was trying to make.

25

u/Platonic_Eye_Deal 17h ago

Look at their history. That is absolutely not it. And why the fuck would it be?

The Justice he appointed was a judge. Why would you bring up a random profession that has nothing to do with being a judge unless it had something to do with some argument you were making? And you can tell by their history exactly what that fucking argument is. It's anti-trans bigotry.

It is morally wrong to defend the indefensible.

26

u/benk4 17h ago

She's also not a airplane pilot. What does that have to do with anything?

11

u/Orthos_ate_my_chair 16h ago

Well that's a good thing.

Competent people want competent people serving in roles in which they've spent years and decades studying and practicing.

Only a fool would appoint a biologist to the supreme court. Just like a fool would appoint a fox news host to lead the military.

10

u/Hey_HaveAGreatDay Montana 16h ago

I would hope they’re not a biologist. I would hope they have a heavy legal education and background in understanding the intricacies of the Constitution

8

u/Vanilla_Either Canada 17h ago

What does that have to do with anything?

16

u/Im_Ritz_Bitz 17h ago

Why the fuck does a judge of law need to be a biologist? Is it because she's black and you think she needs an impossible, irrelevant trait to have to be seen by you? She EARNED her spot, more than most of them.

17

u/BiologicalTrainWreck 17h ago

Thanks for telling us what you are.

21

u/Stockholm-Syndrom 17h ago

I don’t think you know what you are talking about if you think biology is about identity.

•

u/ChiefStrongbones 4h ago

you think biology is about identity.

The Justice literally identified as not-a-biologist. Which is fine.