Jim Jordan's latest Twitter swipe at Ketanji Brown Jackson backfires spectacularly
The Twitter account belonging to Republican United States Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio is a treasure trove of tidbits into his inner-most mental musings. The January 6th Capitol insurrection participant and alleged college sex abuse cover-upper clearly enjoys the attention that his posts receive; as they say, there is no such thing as bad press.
But his most recent tweet attacking Supreme Court nominee Judge Kentaji Brown Jackson on Tuesday afternoon may just give that adage a serious run for its money.
In only 20 words, Jordan all but accused the media of rigging the SCOTUS confirmation process and completely undermined the GOP's opposition to and suspicion of Jackson.
"Want to see media bias?" Jordan asked the audience. "Just watch Supreme Court nomination coverage when it’s a conservative versus when it’s a liberal."
Want to see media bias? \n\nJust watch Supreme Court nomination coverage when it\u2019s a conservative versus when it\u2019s a liberal.— Rep. Jim Jordan (@Rep. Jim Jordan) 1647972355
The problem with the first part of Jordan's complaint is that it makes no sense because coverage of Senate hearings happens in real-time, astute Twitter users pointed out...
The networks (abc, cbs, nbc) employ journalists who investigate and report the news. CNN and MSNBC provide expert commentary/analysis of the news. FOX is an infotainment outlet similar to TMZ and the National Enquirer. It's basically sharks vs. bottom feeders.— Third Coast (@Third Coast) 1647972475
I watch ABC World News Tonight and I've never seen any bias. It's a summary of the day's events. I also read Newsday which I find to be non-partisan as well. What you are watching, Gymbo isn't news. It's political commentary. Geeze, no wonder you couldn't pass the Ohio Bar Exam.pic.twitter.com/I74MI2BVRs— Raymond Zbikowski (@Raymond Zbikowski) 1647972708
What feed you watching jimbo? Mine is just a camera going from the person asking a question to her answering. Explain how that\u2019s media bias. I\u2019ll wait.— GravyJosh (@GravyJosh) 1647972689
Maybe it has something to do with ramming a nomination through weeks before a Presidential election? Or nominating someone who has been accused by multiple parties of sexual assault.— anthony sims \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@anthony sims \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8) 1647974237
You sure it's conserving versus liberal and not a totally unqualified nominee versus a very qualified nominee?— Bonnie Fetterolf (@Bonnie Fetterolf) 1647973966
...no matter who the nominee is or the office that they are hoping to hold...
This shouldn't have been covered?pic.twitter.com/iz9n7FA1jK— pumor (@pumor) 1647972510
Strange? I don\u2019t remember them taking place. . Maybe we missed that hearing?— Trish S-L (@Trish S-L) 1647973101
Like asking about her faith?— Evan (@Evan) 1647972386
You won't see this highly accomplished lady announce she likes beer.— Brenda Lee \ud83d\ude37 (@Brenda Lee \ud83d\ude37) 1647972624
I havent seen her get hysterical and crying and saying \u201cI like beer\u201d. \n\nJim Jordon was in on the COUP!\nLOCK HIM UP!!pic.twitter.com/bRwy94Q2ks— charlie (@charlie) 1647975771
...or the double standards certain right-wing politicians apply to the circumstances.
You approved a SC justice in like 30 days record time who had virtually no legal experience. Not to mention she couldn't even properly address the 1Ahttps://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2020/10/14/amy-coney-barrett-forgets-right-to-protest-is-a-first-amendment-freedom/?sh=212a11d612ed\u00a0\u2026— Ryan T. Loy (@Ryan T. Loy) 1647973149
It would never occur to you to think that the coverage was based on the actual answers given. We are not little children, putting on a team Jersey and rooting for our side. Some people actually think and respond accordingly.— momcat (@momcat) 1647973148
I know! It\u2019s disgusting how they\u2019re equivocating the \u201ccontroversy\u201d of Judge Jackson being a black woman with Judge Kavanaugh having multiple accusations of committing criminal sexual assault against him. You do understand then that being a black woman is not a crime, right?— \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6\ud83c\udf3bFuck Putin!\ud83c\udf3b\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6 (@\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6\ud83c\udf3bFuck Putin!\ud83c\udf3b\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\udde6) 1647974242
Others noted that a nominee's qualifications, as well as the contents of their characters, are supposed to have an impact – but not on how confirmation hearings are broadcast to the public.
Look what happens when you nominate qualified people— Ryan (@Ryan) 1647972427
You sure it's conserving versus liberal and not a totally unqualified nominee versus a very qualified nominee?— Bonnie Fetterolf (@Bonnie Fetterolf) 1647973966
pic.twitter.com/PuiuAN1qZF— Blessed@50 (@Blessed@50) 1647972466
For sure, Fox coverage is exceptionally bias.— Wayne (@Wayne) 1647972498
pic.twitter.com/NmMX6xp1yx— Blessed@50 (@Blessed@50) 1647972473
Sexual assaults from Supreme Court nominations highlighted by the media are biased? You know like Clarence Thomas, or Brett Kavanagh? Maybe they are the devil's triangle with the people in the middle?— Ravi I am #Not Silenced!! (@Ravi I am #Not Silenced!!) 1647972783
That\u2019s not the media Hoss. That\u2019s the difference between a nominee that is chosen to fill a political role and one that is truly qualified, between racist scum republicans and those of us who are willing to confirm a highly qualified person no matter what the color of her skin— NewBlueCongaStevie (@NewBlueCongaStevie) 1647972587
The difference is liberal Presidents nominate qualified candidates. TFG nominated someone with credible rape allegations (right up his own alley) and someone that never adjudicated a case and was woefully unqualified (again, being unqualified was up his alley too)— Wes LeMay Jr (@Wes LeMay Jr) 1647973464
Maybe it has something to do with ramming a nomination through weeks before a Presidential election? Or nominating someone who has been accused by multiple parties of sexual assault.— anthony sims \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@anthony sims \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8\ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8) 1647974237
The big differences are the nominee is qualified this time and hasn\u2019t been accused of sexual assault!— Patti Peterson (@Patti Peterson) 1647973498
barrett and kavanaugh \nwere/are both not qualified to be on the SCOTUS; \nJudge Jackson is.\n\nThat's the difference, gym\n\nIt's not "media bias", it's the media accurately reporting on the personal and judicial records of the applicants...pic.twitter.com/MSB839o1G5— Hugh G Merriman MD (@Hugh G Merriman MD) 1647974660
Jackson, however, has already been confirmed by the Senate to the second-highest court in the country.
People see through Jordan's grandstanding.
It\u2019s not bias Gym. . . When conservatives lie, cheat and rant about () media bias it\u2019s 100% based upon their track record of lying and cheating so. . . . . . Also, they have your phone records— Travis Gardner (@Travis Gardner) 1647974615
And they have a word for it.
Editor's Note: An earlier version of this article misspelled Ketanji Brown Jackson's first name.
