The newly appointed supreme court judge Ketanji Brown has been making headlines globally for all the right reasons. In a country that continues to struggle with the problem of racism, Ketanji Brown has made history for being the first-ever African American in the history of America to serve in the Supreme Court. Ketanji has been celebrated for her exemplary work and ability to defy the challenges of being a woman and an African American in a career that white men dominate.
However, the celebration of the appointment of Brown to the Supreme court was not received well, especially by Republicans who were seen leaving after confirmation of her appointment. Most people were surprised, but it was not because the Republicans had expressed their stand since she got nominated by President Joe Biden. However, what is the more significant issue that prompted Republicans to reject Ketanji Brown’s appointment? Is it merely a partisan issue, or is there more than meets the eyes?
The senate, where Democrats and the Republican party were interrogating Brown, proved that the whole issue was not based on her capabilities and integrity but was the usual partisan fights. According to an article by Sarah Binder, who is a contributor to the Washington Post, “Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) interrogated Jackson over her religiosity, suggesting he was giving Democrats a taste of their own medicine given what he called their “offensive” treatment of Barrett in 2020.”
Therefore, the idea that Ketanji Brown’s credibility was the real reason for Republicans to block her appointment is not the case. It was merely a “revenge” mission in response to Democrats questioning supreme court judge Amy Barrett in 2020.
Despite the partisan fights that are common in the senate, the appointment of Brown as a Supreme Court judge gives hope to millions of African-Americans and particularly black women, that they can make it despite the racism present in the country.
Work Cited
Binder, Sarah. “Americans supported Jackson. Why didn’t more Republican senators?” The Washington Post, 8 Apr. 2022, http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/04/08/kbj-confirmation-supreme-court-republican-support/.
U Penn Social Book 
This is certainly a newsworthy event for all the reasons you state but I’m wondering what role you give social media in the controversy. Also, I notice you cite an article about Zelensky as the basis for your post and not Brown.
Sorry, professor because I wrote it in the word and this time I post 4 blogs but my work cited is not list one by one. And I just post it, I already revised these four and I want to know will it influence my grade of my Blogs? Sorry about it!
I think social media plays a role in the struggle now. I would describe it in several ways.
First, the political identity of supporters has changed from limited choice to multiple choice. In party politics, the number of parties is limited and the choice of supporters is limited. Social media, by contrast, gives supporters more choice about their political identity. Some people who do not know each other, as long as we have a recognition of an idea or concept, can form an identity “community”.
Second, what is known today as “big data” has created a new possibility to “tap” and mobilize supporters that traditional political parties have not been able to tap and mobilize.
Third, like traditional political parties, social media has the function of aggregation, bringing together otherwise dispersed forces on the platform of social media. If there is fragmentation but no aggregation, social media will hardly create political influence. It is this great aggregation function that makes social media a possible alternative to traditional political parties.
In fact, over the past many years, there has been a trend toward the Internetization of political parties; in today’s popular Chinese terminology, it is political parties + Internet.
For example, Trump’s language is more social media friendly than Hillary’s, or rather, Trump’s language is prepared for social media, such as “build the wall” and “make America great,” and similar language is appropriate for a social media audience. Hillary also uses social media, but her language is too traditional and not as applicable to social media.
On traditional party platforms, people judge candidates by listening to speeches and the content of those speeches. But in the age of social media, people often listen not to speeches, but to words and slogans. A candidate’s ability to deliver a speech is still important, but more important is whether the candidate has the right words for social media circulation
Social media allows for mass democracy.