'Ted Talk' Given After Ketanji Brown Jackson's Disputed Claim About Black Babies in AA Case

RedState ^ | 6/30/23 | Sister Toldjah

[CFW]

It has been an incredibly wild (and based!) week with the decisions the Supreme Court has handed down, including the Friday rulings upholding religious freedom and effectively grounding Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program.

But though the leftist meltdowns have been plentiful, what has been far more fulfilling to read have been the dissections of what the dissenting liberal Justices wrote on the Thursday affirmative action case ruling and the Friday one pertaining to religious freedom.

Some of those dissections, as we previously reported, came from the court’s conservative members like Neil Gorsuch, who savaged Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent in the 303 Creative case. There was also Justice Clarence Thomas’ straight-fire takedown of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson‘s race-based arguments in the affirmative action case.

But one doesn’t need to be a brilliant conservative Supreme Court Justice to be able to spot a wildly questionable claim, which is what happened after Justice Jackson’s dissent in the Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard/UNC case came under closer scrutiny by legal experts.

In her dissent, Jackson argued in part that “the diversity that UNC pursues for the betterment of its students and society is not a trendy slogan. It saves lives.” And to back up her claim, she cited a brief from the lawyers for a medical group (starts on page 230) which she said proved that black doctors treating black high-risk newborns “more than doubles the likelihood that the baby will live”:

[CaptainK]

This justice has staff attorneys and clerks at her beck and call, not to mention the other Justices themselves. Was no one at the Supreme Court able to explain her error to her in a manner she could understand?

The justices agreeing with her are her intellectual equals thus the mistake is their fact. Same thing for her AA staff.

For the other side to correct her, why step in a minefield?

[CFW]

“The justices agreeing with her are her intellectual equals thus the mistake is their fact. Same thing for her AA staff.

For the other side to correct her, why step in a minefield?”

---

Yes. I can imagine the allegations of “white supremacy-mansplaining” which would be ‘leaked’ from the Court to add to the recent pile-on of Justice Thomas (mattering not that Justice Thomas is actually black and only explaining the Constitution to someone who is unaware of its contents).

But, both Jackson and Sotomayor’s dissent’s were constitutionally weak and poorly written. Even many on the left are appalled at their poor dissents. What is a nation to do when their Presidents abuse their authority in such a manner and appoint activists to such positions

[IncPen]

Was no one at the Supreme Court able to explain her error to her in a manner she could understand?

If I were a conservative justice, I’d let her make the error. Why help the fool?

As troubling as this AA justice Jackson is, it’s equally troubling that her minions allowed the nonsense to go through—fomenting a lie because the cause is more important than the truth. That’s a very vivid sign of what we can expect here.

We better elect a good conservative president in the next few years—Clarence Thomas won’t live forever.

[Republican Wildcat]

“I’m not a mathematician.”

[Republican Wildcat]

Says a lot about her clerks - either they were incompetent and not providing good advice and counsel - or they were using her opinion to promote propaganda into the record. In either case, not a ringing endorsement for her qualifications for jurisprudence.

[CraigEsq]

Putting the best light on the claim, if you flip it around to the mortality rate instead of the survival rate, it is 0.04% vs. 0.09% - from that direction “double” is an arguable, but still highly misleading, position.