DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Justice Breyer to retire

Liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Breyer to retire, letting Biden pick successor

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/li...-breyer-retire-media-reports-2022-01-26/


Biden said he will pick a black woman. Michelle Obama on the Supreme Court? I'd be good with that mostly because it would make GOPer heads explode.

I'm sure the Michelle Obama thing must be mostly jest. She's all but said she's ready to retire, more specifically from the "limelight". She's an amazing woman, I'm sure she could fill just about any public role, but SCOTUS would not be one of them.

Yeah, I don't think Biden would go there either, but I would love it, and I think she could not only handle it, but probably slay it on the court. But I 99.9% doubt that it ever happens. It will be fun enough seeing the GOPers try to block the first black woman on the SCOTUS.

Is he saying whites, hispanics, native Americans, asian Americans and males need not apply?

What if a Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Asian, or Native American woman is more qualified for the job?

Just the long haired hippie types, the sign said.

Personally I have a massive disdain for racial profiling for political appointments when the mantra should be most qualified.

There are a couple of names floating around, regardless, I just would not go there.

Basically. And that's the real issue; not picking a black woman, but stating so beforehand as an election campaign pledge to earn brownie points.

I'm sure he will appoint a black woman, I'm sure she will be well-qualified, I'm also sure it's way overdue. I'm not so sure stating so, before he ever had the opportunity, was a very prudent move as it will cast a needless shadow over the appointee.

But hey, all's fair in love, war and elections.

I assume Biden with either appoint Ketanji Brown Jackson or Leondra Kruger.

Both very well qualified for the appointment. Both had former clerkships for Supreme Court justices.

I just wish the President hadn't announced that his first appointment was going to be a black woman. IMO that puts a undue target on her and hints of tokenism. It will somewhat diminish her accomplishments and qualifications, even if they are suburb. I hope her confirmation hearing goes better than the circus the last few justices have had to endure.

Hardly a reason to support anybody to the Supreme Court.

So I'll admit on here that I didn't know that MB is/was a lawyer (JD from Harvard, had to look it up)... so even though your post is still ridiculous, it's nowhere near as ridiculous as I originally thought. A Supreme Court appointment is the highest achievement one can get in the field of law. One would hope that celebrity points shouldn't count much in making a decision like this, but I would also hope that earning brownie points with a slice of America shouldn't count either.

I can't speak for minorities, but I would imagine that they cringed when they heard him say he'd appoint someone that was black and a female. "Ol' Uncle Joe is throwing us another bone again". Just like with Kamala... if you're really just using the appointment to earn brownie points, and at least make a show of it and say "I will put forward the most qualified person".

I agree with this. To say something like this beforehand as a campaigning point dilutes from the fact that the incoming justice might otherwise be completely qualified independent of sex/race/etc.

Hopefully whoever is chosen doesn’t have a frat house style lecherous background. Maybe that’ll prevent a circus…. You know, not inviting a clown.

It should be, if history is any indication, at least I hope. The Kavanaugh incident was quite a spectacle, but he was more of an anomaly. Looking at someone like Gorsuch, the situation surrounding his appointment was far more controversial (after the whole Garland thing), and his judicial history was more controversial than Kavanaugh's (I think the whole aim was to replace Scalia with someone just like him). However, he was basically so boring otherwise - as in personal life - that things went off relatively smoothly, in terms of Senate confirmations at least.

I'm sure there will be people on the other side of the aisle who attempt to grill her for the sake of their own political points, but as long as there are no witnesses that come forth alleging anything, I think she'll be fine.

The appointment will go off with out a hitch for 2 reason

1. Senate republicans know they cannot do anything about the confirmation, so why even put forth the effort.
2. Since it has been announced that the selection is only about race and gender, the Senate Republicans know they will look bad creating a scene that they have 0 control over.

The announcement's timing says alot about the expectations of the Dems. It is almost as if they know they will lose control of the Senate in 10 months. SCOTUS is supposedly a political, but this just shows how political the court system really is.

Now math....black women make up about 6% of the nations population. 1/3 of them are too young to hold SCOTUS seat and 1/3 are too old. That means Joe has eliminated 98% of the country from even being considered. MLK is rolling in his grave hearing that the color of skin is how you are judged to get a lifetime appointment. The next SCOTUS may be great, but she will always have the cloud of Joe's words hanging over her appointment in that she got the job as a result of affirmative action. The idiot could have picked her on "merit" with a false dog and pony show of interviews of all races and creeds.....but the 50 year vet of politics royally screwed the pooch on this appointment....I feel bad for the lady whom ever he chooses.

That seems like a short term view point that will not have a long term impact on her legacy.

Ronald Reagan made the campaign promise that he would appoint the first female Supreme Court justice and that ended up being Sandra Day O'Connor. I do not think her legacy has been diminished at all by Reagan's campaign promise.

Like, O'Connor, it will be her votes/decisions on the bench that define her legacy.

You said it better than I. This is what makes me mad. The person who is selected will in all likelihood deserve much better than this.

The same way Trump said if you're pro choice you need not apply.

pssst. I don't like Trump, I didn't vote for him, and he's not the president.

That doesn't matter. TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

I think jfan has said he didn't vote for Trump about a dozen or so times on the board. Pit just missed all of them I guess. And I know you were taking a Pit dig arch, and I've seen why. But I do have to keep saying Trump, Trump, Trump too, because he's still a very real threat until he's not. You're not supporting him, and the 6th happened, so we should be able to agree on that much, right?

I'll go with that.

Thank you.
Your post saved me a lot of typing.

98% percent of the US couldn't name probably 1 Justice. So the only ones that will make any news about any of this are, the politicians to get face time, and the media. And then the loudest, most un-educated, will drag it to social media and create an uproar that amongst that 98%. Rinse, Repeat, Recycle.

It is short term. Unfortunately, it is the reality. No doubt her legacy will be determined by her duty as a jurist. That will take possibly 30 or more years to determine. I can speak for myself, and probably for many others on the board that we won't be around before her legacy is determined.

I am confident she will have the qualifications and integrity the President mentioned. That is all we can ask for in a nominee, and I think by and large we get that, even if we feel the person doesn't align with our political feelings. As I have always said, If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. It would be a pretty sterile world if we had all like minds and thoughts.

The last thing we want is rubberstamp judges. Weighing constitutional matters is far greater than any cause or political feeling.

There always seems to be something, even if bogus. You are probably a bit young to remember the Thomas hearing with Anita Hill. We just need to get away from obvious smear tactics.

I think the founding Fathers would not be happy how this process has ended up. The Supreme Court rule is to determine rulings that a line to our Constitution. Judges were never meant to be radical legislating from their bench. Just simply interpret if something was in line with the Constitution. What we have seen in the last 50+ years is judges activist judges that rule outside the Constitution and that is wrong. Not what the founding Fathers set up at all.

I think a good judge should be someone with integrity, courage, not able to be bought by money or influence, not swayed by a political party or leaning, not legislating from the bench, but simply interrupting the principles of the Constitution. The gender or race of the individual should not matter. Their character is what counts.

I don't think the judges have been that radical. I've been surprised (pleasantly and not so much) by some of the rulings and dissentions that haven't followed the party lines of those who nominated them. These are smart people who hopefully judge with their brains.

I definitely don't have any firsthand memories of the Thomas hearing. I know there's always resistance and some people who go out of their way to dredge up garbage, but for every Thomas and Kavanaugh, there's a host of Gorsuch, Roberts, Sotomayor, etc. There's always some fair level of a circus act during the confirmation process, but hopefully this one will be toward the more normal end of the spectrum, vs the extreme. That being said, I know nothing about any of the candidates.

Maybe I didn't make it clear but it really wasn't about who you voted for. It was about the fact that other presidents have based their selections on their politics, gender and yes, even nationality.


Trump on Supreme Court nominee: 'It will be a woman'

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/19/politics/trump-ruth-bader-ginsburg-vacant-seat-fill/index.html

Trump: I’ll appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade abortion case

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/tru...o-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html

My point was narrowing down who a president will nominate for the SCOTUS has been done based on gender, political beliefs and yes, in the case of Scalia nationality. It was to address the point you were making, not who you did or did not vote for. But it is noted that you didn't seem to post objections to Trump nominating anyone based on gender or political beliefs and now it seems like an issue that biden has outlined his paramaters.

I had beefs with a lot of things Trump did and posted them. So because I didn't post about this particular issue, I have no right to bring it up about our current prez? Do you see how ridiculous that sounds?

Sometimes the timing of why something becomes an issue means more than one would care to admit. Sometimes not. That doesn't make the idea ridiculous.

I don't know anything because I haven't paid much attention the the "oddsmakers". Once a candidate is put before the Senate I will pay attention to some degree. Even then not all that much. I am not going to go read some of their decisions or anything like that.

What I look for I can't see until after they are confirmed to the court. In today's political climate, justices are pegged this or that. I like to see a justice go against the grain so to speak and render opinion that doesn't seem to fit the mold of liberal or conservative. At least once in a while. It can't always be decisions that seem to have a political slant. I don't like to see that. I don't like to see split decisions based on political slant, time after time, after time.

As you know, the law isn't simply a political institution. Sometimes the law is the law and interpretations don't always have much room for deviation. Constitutional law possibly allows for more deviation since most times it is a groundbreaking case, but even then, the parameters seem pretty narrow IMO.

The Constitution is living and breathing to some degree, but the words held within the text do have meaning and shouldn't be tossed aside so easily.

I agree completely

I actually believe that the nomination of the Supreme Court justice is the one thing that should require consensus and 60 votes. All we get now is cartoonish partisan hacks that want to use the constitution for their agenda.

Speaking of partisan. If it took 60 votes we would have several vacancies in the SCOTUS. Bipartisan support for almost anything is a relic of the past.

Exactly my thought when I read his post.

Maybe not. It would certainly bring more centered nominations.

Coming from two centrist (I assume that's where you are on the political spectrum, arch), that's saying something. If Pit doesn't think there is a place for bipartisanship, then you know those divides are horrible out there politically. Does this mean that neither party should run a centrist nominee? I can't think of a single living politician that I feel could unite our people again and calm the divides. Especially with Trump out there still trying to end democracy.