Facts aren't "debatable".
Apart from the fact that KJB graduated magna cum laude from Harvard University, then attended Harvard Law School, where she graduated cum laude and was an editor of the Harvard Law Review she is also:
"the most experienced trial court judge to join the Supreme Court in almost a century.
Jackson served on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for nearly 8 years, giving her more trial court experience than any sitting Supreme Court justice and more than any justice since Edward Sanford, who was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1923.
Jackson would be only the second sitting justice to serve at all three levels of the federal judiciary.
Only Justice Sonia Sotomayor has also served as a District judge, Circuit judge and Supreme Court justice.
Jackson would bring more years of experience as a judge than four of the sitting justices combined.
Jackson has more than eight years of experience as a judge; that’s more than Justices Thomas, Roberts, Kagan, and Barrett had combined when they were confirmed.
Jackson would be the first public defender to become a Supreme Court justice in the history of the Court.
She would be the first justice with substantial criminal defense experience since Thurgood Marshall retired in 1991."
https://demandjustice.org/judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-is-one-of-the-most-qualified-nominees-for-the-supreme-court-ever/
https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/kbj/
"I suspect it wasn't really relevant to his point though. Someone can be totally qualified, even the best qualified, but if they were picked for diversity reasons, they are a diversity hire. That's one of the arguments against it, it follows people whether they are qualified or not, and casts doubts on their competence even when those doubts aren't deserved.
And the Democrats make those kinds of decisions a lot. And it's suspect to people because if they were really the best qualified, why make a diversity decision? If they weren't, then the criticism has teeth. A lot of American conservatives see this as a statement that Democrats don't think black Americans can achieve at the same level as white Americans."
It only casts doubt because of far right indoctrination of what diversity inclusion means…. a lot like what Kirk is doing here by pretending these women were not qualified. Diversity inclusion has never suggested merit isn't necessary rather that diversity is beneficial to organisations & as such should be considered for inclusion.
Cultural diversity by virtue of sex, ethnicity, class, geography etc brings different approaches & skills to the work place of which provide higher service/profit delivery. Now that's not to assume just because an individual has a different life experience they mustn't think the same as others but that often it does which is a qualification in its self.
The great con the far right pull off here is the 'suspicion' angle. 'You are only raising suspicion' which in the context of who actually substantially gets the free ride in the college system is white people via legacy, donor & 'country club' sporting admissions. That Affirmative Action admissions are a minuscule fraction of this is conveniently ignored. Of course white people must never be 'sus'….they have always 'earned' their place…..