DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Justice Breyer to retire

I'm a fan of that...

Jc

Do people not realize that white women have been the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action? I love how people associate affirmative action with black people and yet don’t even bother looking at the stats. Those policies were created to help women and people of color, not just black people.

Amy Corbett would be more of an affirmative action pick than the front runner for the new seat right now.

I swear the “know your history” crowd never seem to know their history.

You talk about veiled racism, I've been seeing that affirmative action BS on social media from the right. Smh. The pick, that will be qualified, hasn't even been announced, and they are saying that. I think Biden was right in putting it out early on, and sticking to it now. It's giving the racist radical alt-right a chance to get most of their hate out of their systems now, instead of a few weeks before her confirmation. It will probably just give them more time to plot against her confirmation. I'm sure they are going to do whatever they can to delay or to stop the confirmation. It's not a done deal with Sinema and Manchin in our ranks. There may even be a few more centrist dems we need to worry about too. Although, the dumbass duo will probably just fall in line here, trying to earn 'dem' points again; I wouldn't put a thing past them after they let the build back better and voting rights die on the vine. Scum.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/po...consider-all-nominees-supreme-court-pick

Most of America doesn't want a token black woman. They want somebody chosen on merit not skin color.

I think you are way off base. Lindsey Graham, has endorsed one possible candidate. If venom is being spit, i think it comes from more with your political slant.

In my first post I said it was a shame the President made it a mandate. What I feared is looking like it might happen. I think it should happen, a black woman on the court. I just don't want to diminish the womans accomplishments. Whoever it is isn't where they are without being qualified. Any argument is over the best qualified, and that is always open for debate. I just hope we can get past smear campaigns and discuss the merits of their accomplishments and not some bogus charges brought by some back closet "witness" making claims from 30 years in the past.

Let's keep it civil and on point.

Who said the nominee is going to be token anything?

This is as simple as it gets - there are nominees available who are black woman who are as qualified and as good or better than any other individual of either sex and of any other color. Period - end of the first part of the story.

The second part of the story is that after 120 supreme justices, none of whom were black women ... it is time to address an imbalance that has been in place since 1790.

You might not like that. Fox entertainment might rile up the masses with spin and propaganda ... but it doesn't change these two facts. And throwing out the line 'we don't want a token' - is simple gaslighting. The candidate will be as qualified and legitimate as ANY other possible candidate.

Biden did (imo).


I feel like I should clarify. I have absolutely 0 problem with a black/white/hispanic/whatever woman/man being the appointee. But the way he announced it sounds like he's going for cheap brownie points. For me, using the Justice appointee process like this really calls into question Biden's actual opinion on attacking racism.

I will double down on my thoughts. I firmly believe that 60 votes would lead to more justices like Kennedy (justice swing vote) and fewer like Alito, Ginsberg and so on...

There's a difference between making a mandate and making a promise.

fixed.

Are you saying I wrote too much?

What I'm really saying is:
... nobody does 'simple' better than Eve.

I see what you did there.

The poll was from ABC News. So you can pull your panties out of your butt. Anyone chosen for a job based on the color of their skin or gender is a token.

I think you are confused. Being hired only because you of a certain minority makes you a token. It would mean you aren't actually up to the standard of being highly qualified for the position.

Unless you actually believe there aren't any black women that are qualified to sit on the SCOTUS it would not be described as a token appointment.

All it really does is add diversity to the court from a minority that has been totally unrepresented by the SCOTUS thus far in history. It seems you are stuck on calling it a token because of her gender and or color rather than the actual qualifications of who is nominated for the court. The nominee will not only be based on color but on qualifications as well. But never let the facts get in your way.

I dont have much faith in this Admin that they can make a decent choice. Harris was chosen because she is a black woman and she is incompetant.

So you instead have decided to weigh in on the topic before a nomination is even made? You have made a predetermination without even seeing what the candidates qualifications are? Hmmmm....

That would imply that the parties would employ objective reasoning, rather than descend into posturing.

I get what you are trying to say Peen, but why in the hell would dems trust GOPers for anything? After the theft of one seat from Obama, then ramming through RBGs replacement, are you suggesting that we play nice? Screw that pal. I'm very slanted/jaded when ity comes to this crap due to the stuff your side has pulled. GOPer leadership is so freaking Un-American, who knows what the hell they'll try to pull next. There is still an ongoing slow moving coup attempt and a movement to rig elections across red states! Not to mention the damage/destruction of our institutions, voting rights, reproductive laws, and anything progressive to move the country forward. So no, I'm not being dramatic. If nothing happens and all goes well, good, I was wrong. But I highly doubt that is how this will go. The right can't stop it unless they get the people on their side, even then it would be tough. But two or more suspect dems could do it with 100% of GOPer Senators disengaged from any sort of actual legislating/leading. Nothing is like it was before Trump, and they way things seem to be going, it never will be like that again. I hate what we've become, but I don't see the left playing nice any time in the near future. There are too many things the GOPers need to answer for and the political price to pay for those things should be steep. It would be crushingly disappointing for dems to try anything bipartisan, until that price is paid in full.

TBH, I'm still in the camp that thinks Biden should pack the court. Had Garland been seated and RBG replace by Biden, the court would be a liberal majority 5-4 instead of 6-3 conservative. That is what your side has taken, 10-30 years of a liberal SCOTUS. That's what I want back.

All made possible by a president who did the same. Just sayin'.

J/C
It is always funny to hear folks all up in arms about the picking of a supreme Court justice and making up all types of nonsense... Reagan, during his campaign stated that he would pick a woman! When the chance arose, Reagan picked Sandra Day O'Conner!! After Mitch McConnel stole the Obama pick in the last year of his presidency, the first Trump list had 10 white men. His second submitted list had 3 minorities on it...When Ginsburgh died, Trump stated he would be placing a woman in her spot.. Trump nominated Barrett.

So this has been done before and no one was crying about affirmative action or anything then! And please do not bring up qualifications, the top 3 black women that Biden is considering have BETTER JUDICIAL RECORDS than "Beer Bong Kavannaugh" or " Barely legal Amy Coney Barrett"!!!!... SO I think Biden's pick will do just fine!!...

But how is it now all the tears about pre-picking and affirmative action and best qualified?? I wonder why now?? .. I bet i know!

Not when used in the context in which I used the word. It can be used as a noun or a verb.

My only problem is saying so before the nomination tends to cheapen the act IMO. It isn't a statement against whoever is nominated I am sure she will be well qualified, and well vetted. Hopefully confirmed if she is qualified, and hopefully rejected if she isn't.

DING DING DING.

Fake outrage by the Trump Supporters and Anti-Communists.

You do realize that the only difference between what Trump said about appointing a woman and Biden saying he would appoint a black woman is the word black, right? I wonder why so many make a sticking point out of the word black? Things that make yo go hmmmmm.....

To be completely fair, if you watch the old video clips, Reagan stated and restated the most qualified woman. Biden just said black woman. Not that there would not be any qualified black women, but Reagan addressed the issue in a manner that Biden overlooked.

It was wrong then and it's wrong now!

I disagree 100%. I think that's semantics and trying to make a controversy where there is none, or SHOULD be none. It is implied and expected that ANY candidate be qualified.

Sure ... and you actively posted about it being wrong before right? >>>> feel free to track down the posts for me.

I wasn't a huge fan of the qualifier Biden used, as I already mentioned, but along with what you're saying, I also take a huge issue with how it's being spun by the other side. Ted Cruz (big surprise) came out and basically said Biden was disrespecting 94% of the population. I didn't realize that 94% of the population was up for consideration for a United States Supreme Court justice role.

Guess you don't need a law degree.

But let's look at what he did say......


Do you believe that Brett Kavanaugh was the most qualified candidate for SCOTUS? How about Amy Coney Barrett? Because you see, Trump also qualified his appointees to only candidates that he believed would overturn Roe vs Wade. I understand that many news outlets are not showing what Biden said in its entirety. But the only real difference in what Reagan said and what Biden said is nothing more than semantics.

I believe there are judges of all races and genders that are pretty much equally qualified to sit on the SCOTUS. I don't believe it will be any different with the choice Biden nominates.

Maybe Ted Cruz was referring to the first part of the sentence you highlighted being the disqualifier of 94% of the population. I guess he'd be right there

I think Ted Cruz's point went over your head.

I saw where Cruz said that. Here's what he didn't say.

There have been 114 Supreme Court Justices. Of those 108 have been white men. 4 have been women and a total of 3 have been people of color.

He didn't mention how history tells us that 108 times out of 114 times only white men were considered and that less than 6% of the time only women or minorities were not left out.

I mean if he wants to get into that 94% range.

Let me clue you in, or cue you, from my memories. Justice Clerence Thomas, (A black man) (as if, and it's irrelevant but per the circumstances the democrats made it relevant) to my life's time frame was about the first memory I paid attention to his nomination to the supreme court.
IIRC> if I recall correctly, remembering, Thomas! his nomination was Early in the George Bush senior's admin. Bush, ( a democrat light imo) labeled a Republican, was president after being vice president during the Regan admin for 8 years, and this was a 12 year Republicn presidential admin time frame, and a 20-30+ year time of both sides of congress being dominated by democrat majorities, and therefore, the democrat partys agenda had been making progress (as it always has) for years.
that's not the point, just some context, the point is.
Justice Clerance Thomas was announced, as a nomination for the Supreme court, and I didn't know what I was in for.
At the announcement of Clerence Thomas, many political analyists iirc in the immediate minutes of reaction said things like, this is a liberal, this is a concession to the democrats in congress at the time, (He is a black man, which shouldn't matter but it will later)-says me.
and Bush,
some of the pundits may have said, even asked if he could have found a more challenging candidate, a more conservative or republican leaning judge, and then others would push back. ( but I wasn't prepared for what happened next)
A day or so passed.
And When Clerence Thomas got up, in the Freaking congress of the United States, to face questions from Freaking Senators, (I think) or congressmen and women And Senators, about the confirmation process. What happened?
On the Nightly news, (in an age, where sexual references, were not accepted on regular television the way these awful tv show like "2 broke girls' so brashedly tear the innocence of any small children who may happen to watch such trash, on regular tv.)
ON the Nightly news. One Freaking Day later,
the Freaking questioning, on the Floor of the Senate, from Senators, about a sitting judge, about to go from like one step down to the highest court in the land, so from like a Circuit court of appeals court,
the Senators in their line of questioning- go straight to.
(They bring out Anita Hill, and ask if she was ever sexually harassed type questioning, SO THAT)
the democrats line of questioning I don't even know if I could put it on this message board
the next subject, ON my TV. and for the next 5 days, because of the democrats line of questioning included only 2 terrible memories imo,
in a failed attempt to smear Clearance Thomas' name because he was confirmed.
They accused sexual harassment from years prior, but 2 things stood out.
Questions of if there was a body hair on a soda can, the worst kind. And Questions on the size of his male "personality".
and
nobody raised an acusation the years before in his career, but, as a supreme court nominee, this is how careless and lack of respect for the judgement of the nominee in his or her prior decisions means to the democrat party senators at that time, and every democrat politician i' can think of in my lifetime up until this time.
But for 5 days, in the Eveneng news, this is pushed by the democrats. Anitia Hill, a secretary from his past, but not even her, or her words, no, 2 subjects were the Framing of the debate. A soda can with a body hair, and a body part
A soda can and a body part. Was there a soda can did you see a hair on a can. Is there a body part.
Does this disqualify him from being a judge at all.
And That is how the democrats! treat the process, when a Republican( rino, dem-lite), gives them a concession liberal nomination, that they'd supposedly approve of.
Just one example of a lifetime of the democrat politicians not doing what would seem to be (I dunno? common sense respectable behavior toward not only the people but the political system, the constitution, the sense of fairness, anything that doesn't ruin freedom or seek to place a crushing boot on the proverbial necks of common people) Or make a mockery of the process like Rosanne' Bahrs version of the National Anthem circa 1997.

Although I agree with you, if you leave the gate open, the flood waters will rush in. The lesson is that you never leave anything "implied" or "expected" in politics. A politician will see the opening and attack their opponent.

And with regard to any candidate to be qualified... Harriet Myers is proof that unqualified people have been nominated.

He's making the argument folks,
that I didn't come on this message board in circa 1980-1983, a good 16 years before anyone even knew about the internet as a general public, or the internet didn't proliferate across to 70+ percent of houses in the US before 1995, and I doubt this message board existed,
that I didn't make a post THEN, that Sandra Day Oconnors? nomination by Reagan, if made because of gender,
was wrong to have been made on gender, or race and gender. Well! He sure got me with a zinger, enjoy the win.
---------
I didn't come here to argue, I came here to quote one of Damons' posts that was quoted that I haven't found the original post yet.

If you read what I have posted, you would have figured out that I am not a fan of selecting judges that are extreme on either side. Extreme political ideology is not a place when justice can survive. This is why a 60 vote threshold would eliminate the extremes and force a consensus pick.

I can anticipate the crap storm that will hit if Roe vs Wade is repealed. If it lights a fire under democrats, maybe they will figure out that they need to vote to make a difference.

And For 50 years+ Right thinking individuals have been telling those who argue that point that it is racist and sexist to make the nominees race and sex a determiner in the nomination process!
We are not selecting, photos of some Calandar like the USA version of some Hawaiian Tropic, or Chip N Dales Calander photos, or miss America or Mr America pageant. It is selecting a Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States. the Judges' wisdom in decisions in their career and their opinions on cases they have faced in the Lead up years of being a Judge on a lower court
Should Be Paramount in the process, along with any other, reasonable, factors, that would effect the projected future decision making of the Nominee if appointed to the Seat.

I'm not for extreme appointees either. I was just trying to make a few points about your post. Sadly I don't think you could get a total of 60 votes to pass a SCOTUS nominee right now. And yes, I understand it really wasn't that long ago that you could. I guess my overall point is that most every president has qualifiers on who they nominate. Not that I'm in favor of that. And that usually, if one had the knowledge and ability to research every judge that qualified for a SCOTUS appointee, we would probably get a wide range of opinions on who was most qualified. Sort of a "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" type thing.

I would say that we are pretty much in agreement with the type of nominee we would like to see selected for an appointment to the SCOTUS.