Ketanji Brown Jackson: Big Dummy
BY Herschel Smith
8 months, 3 weeks ago
You’d think that at least her clerks would have prepared her better than this.
And here’s Justice Jackson: “And when, you know, ‘function’ is defined, it’s really not about the operation of the thing. It’s about what it can achieve, what it’s being used for. So I see Congress as putting function in this. The function of this trigger is to cause this kind of damage, 800 rounds a second or whatever.”
Not even the Navy’s Phalanx is capable of that rate of fire (4500 Rounds Per Minute).
Maybe there’s a quad gun that can approach that rate, but still, 4500 RPM × 4 = 18000, and 18000 RPM / 60 seconds per minutes = 300 RPM. So, I don’t know of anything that can accomplish 800 rounds per second.
Can you imagine trying to hold a gun on target at that rate of fire?
But hey, I want one!
|
|
On February 28, 2024 at 8:37 pm, Mike said:
This is what happens when an affirmative-action hire is plopped onto the Supreme Court. It’s disgraceful.
On February 28, 2024 at 10:42 pm, Georgiaboy61 said:
The competency crisis is very real… and this story is proof positive!
On February 29, 2024 at 5:56 am, Mark Matis said:
What else would you expect from the source?
On February 29, 2024 at 6:57 am, Chief Acid Rain said:
Not the brightest bulb in the chandelier by any means.
On February 29, 2024 at 11:07 am, george 1 said:
These are the type of people now piloting planes and performing critical maintenance on them.
On February 29, 2024 at 12:55 pm, Steady Steve said:
Diversity hiring at it’s finest!
On February 29, 2024 at 7:39 pm, Arthur Sido said:
It is a humiliation ritual to force Americans to pretend that this woman is qualified to sit in judgment of laws that were created by her betters.
On February 29, 2024 at 8:20 pm, Dan said:
Everyone with the IQ of toast knows she wasn’t appointed due to her intellectual process.
On March 1, 2024 at 4:49 am, Nosmo said:
Forget the math issue, have someone ask her to define a “round”.
On March 1, 2024 at 6:41 am, PGF said:
Just one? I’ll need several.
On March 1, 2024 at 4:43 pm, X said:
“It is a humiliation ritual to force Americans to pretend that this woman is qualified to sit in judgment of laws that were created by her betters.”
Exactly. They intentionally picked someone specifically because she looks like, and has a name that sounds like she is straight from the jungles of Africa. Same reason they picked that freakish-looking black lesbian with a French name from a foreign country to be press secretary.
They want to rub your nose in it like a bad puppy.
On March 1, 2024 at 8:29 pm, ragman said:
She couldn’t define what a woman is? All she had to do was look in her pants.
On March 1, 2024 at 8:44 pm, Joe Blow said:
What’s sad is she demeans and insults genuinely intelligent black people in the legal system like Clarence Thomas. Man worked his ass off to get where he is, and is one of the most brilliant legal scholars of our time. I’m sure he seethes at the thought of her on the court.
On March 4, 2024 at 5:34 pm, Faramir said:
I listened to the full argument and think that calling Brown-Jackson a “big dummy” is much too charitable. Granted, the language that could justifiably be applied is much too vulgar for publication. It’s obvious how she will vote, as she brought her decision with her in her pocket, and her questions revealed that. Her questions also revealed a fundamental ignorance about how firearms work, the way the statute is written, and the role of government in relation to people’s God-given right to self-defense and the use of weapons in furtherance of that right. But that doesn’t matter, because she obviously doesn’t care.
The attorney for the Respondent has the better side of the argument but did not always do a very well at answering questions precisely. He redeemed himself late in the argument, but not before he created a few issues for himself by answering too generally about the language being concerned with “what the trigger does”: That answer was too general because it opened the door to subtle equivocations about the effect a person attempts to accomplish with the firearm by pressing the trigger, which made him look as though he was backpedaling regarding whether the statute focuses on the shooter or the mechanical operation of the trigger.
I think the deputy solicitor general handled the questioning the best, simply because he was direct and upfront with the justices about the weaknesses in his case and the issues, and in the tone of his presentation. That was effective, even though he still doesn’t really understand firearms and had the mentality of the controllers. That said, at points he sounded more credible and less outwardly annoyed at the plain stupidity of some of the questions (unlike the Respondent’s lawyer, who let his annoyance come through at times—however trivial that may seem, it will matter to the women of the Court (of both sexes)).
My guess is this one goes to the government, on pseudo-textualist grounds. Kagan commented at one point she was a textualist, as a jab in response to Respondent’s lawyer commenting at one point that a textualist could not accept one reading or another. She equivocates that term and the terms of the statute. I think equivocation of the terms combined with pivots to purposivism will drive a majority that sides with the government. Especially since Respondent chose not to raise a 2nd Amendment issue (much less go for broke and try to get the whole NFA declared unconstitutional). A Constitutional challenge would have been a tough sell, so I understand the strategic decision. That said, it’s hard to come up with the perfect test case to try to knock out that law, and such a challenge would engender emotionalism unparalleled by anything seen previously on this subject, including Bruen.
On March 4, 2024 at 6:11 pm, PGF said:
She doesn’t have the IQ to understand in the slightest the simple machine in question.
On March 5, 2024 at 1:00 am, skybill said:
Hi Herschel!!!!
In relation to *mizz Jackson’s oration I have few “one liner’s” that come to mind….
1. “Make sure Brain is in gear before putting Mouth into Motion!!!!!”
(‘went to Hell in a Flat Hat after the “Standard Transmission in Cars” gave way to
the “Automatic!!” )
2. “Don’t go off….’Half Cocked!!!!!!'” usually said by the “Side Kick” in an old 1930’s
Cowboy movie… e.g. George “Gabby” Hayes next to Roy Rogers, or
Jean Autrey and don’t forget William Boyd… “Hopalong Cassidy” and his side
kick “California”
3. “Get your shit together” ..meaning pretty much what “Gabby” said but from recent
times.
Maybe if *mizz Jackson had …”DONE HER HOMEWORK!!!” all this key bangin’ of mine would be unneceassary!!!!!
Fat Chance!!!
skybill
PS… (*) well I really don’t know what “Correct “PRO-NOUN” to use in regards to (—-)
so I “Made This One UP!!!”
On March 5, 2024 at 3:58 am, skybill said:
From my above post….
That’s “Gene Autrey!!!”….
Flying Fingers of Fate on the keyboard!!! shoulda known??
anyway…. I stand corrected……. You know…
I shoulda been “On It!!!” especially at …. 800 hit’s a second on my keyboard!!!!
OMG!!! the “Mother board” is melting down.. pour some Whiskey on it!!!
Wait??What….
…………..
Till next time…. just remember……
“There aren’t too many human interaction problems
that can’t be fixed with a .45ACP 230 grain fat boy!!!”
Thank you Herschel for that statement!!
skybill