DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Justice Breyer to retire

No! because.
It will be great. Absolutely wonderful, that a black woman will be on the Supreme court of the United States, actually a real milestone,
and ... for once, in 1 thousand million times,
one that should be celebrated, because it (in my opinion) will be significant.
( To think of all the times, the media, that I cannot help but be exposed to,) has cheeringly with a cheerful voice spent countless years propping up the accomplishments of errr, I don't know, let's say, Athletes, in individual sports.)
but This! This! nomination, and I'd pretty dang sure bet confirmation to the US Supreme Court, should be celebrated! Because it is significant.
Amen.

(but see there is a way to do it, and that would be to just do it. )
HOW GREAT AND CLASSY WOULD/ COULD JOE BIDEN HAVE BEEN, If he would have Just Nominated, whomever,
and it becomes this milestone, and Great day in America,
and if he had never even mentioned Her race and Sex.

Never expect a democrat to avoid showing a lack of class. CORRECTION, you can never say never.

Could he say that whites, Hispanics, native Americans, Asian Americans and males ONLY need apply???? Heck NO!! Black Women deserve an equal opportunity just like everybody!!
equal is equal opportunity!!! How hard is this message to get, from all the 100 years of soviot union racist propagating, identity politics, propaganda, in the regular US media.
shoot,
a 4 year old would get the concept without question,
but a hundred years exposure to the media propaganda of the US regular news. (has brainwashed the minds of a percentage of Americans)
it's ridiculous, that their evil identity politics is going to taint this milestone.

If they really wanted centrist nominations, ... and I orig. had this thought about gerrymandering drawings of districts, and you can't do it with like 3rd 4th and 5th parties, but if we just said the party 2nd in power,
if there was a requirement that nominations get a 1 vote majority of the party 2nd in size of power, then every nominee would truly be centrist.

I also support the centrist idea, that the vice president has to be whomever gets the 2nd most votes for president, which occurred in the very first elections with George Washington if I was told right. (Today the secret rullers would never let that stand).

I do find it ironic that the nominations (past and present) most likely violates the governments own anti-discrimination laws.

I don't think it would apply to a political nomination that has a senate confirmation. There is most likely a carve out for that.

I'm assuming that was for me and not OCD. If Cruz said something along the lines of "It was unfair to automatically narrow the candidate to one race and one gender as a campaign bolster" then I'd be fine with it.

But, we all know why Ted said it the way he said it. I agree with Tucker Carlson on one thing: Ted Cruz is very deliberate in his wordsmithing.

GC. If Conservative news outlet says a possible nominee is against Religious Freedom, including that they have argued that religious organizatons don't have, or shouldn't have a right to make sure Church pastors actually agree with the religion, then this would sound like trying to make the US into the current status of the Chinese government.

"The person I will nominate will be someone of extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity, and that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court," Biden said Thursday. "I made that commitment during the campaign for president, and I will keep that commitment."


People are grandstanding and trying to create contrived controversy where there is none. Oh and Fake Outrage because the Trumpians are so damn emotional.

The only issue I have with the whole thing is that Biden said he would nominate a black woman.

I think it is racist against women who are
Hispanic and Latino Americans
Asian Americans
American Indians and Alaska Natives
Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders
Middle Easterners and North Africans
Two or More Races
Other

Also, Biden just minimalized everything this black woman has spent her life doing because he wanted to nominate a black woman for political reasons. She will be the democratic party's checkbox and it couldn't be more disingenuous.

this post made me giggle.

i like how conservatives are projecting so hard right now. as if we didn't already know that them and the republicans were gonna use a black woman's race against her without Biden's prior statement.

this thread would've been filled with the typical nonsense of her views on BLM and gun violence. as if we wasn't gonna get a bunch of 13% references on fox news regardless.

seems like the right is more obsessed about race than the left. banning CRT, not trying to hurt white kids feelings in florida, whining about biden wanting to appoint a black woman to the SC, the list goes on.

trying to hide biden's prior statement is hilarious. conservatives was gonna use this issue as another way to call us all kinds of colored's, anyway.

and SBD, please stop pretending as if black women seek validation from the likes of you. a black woman being appointed to the SC doesnt minimize any accomplishments she has achieved, only in your busted world view.

First of all, you don't know all of my opinions. You do assume so hard though.

My family is racially mixed, multinational, and I am a second-generation American. You are a disgusting human being. I hope you choke on your cuckold politically biased words. They ring as hollow as the actual actions of politicians promoting equality for everyone in America.

i have zero reason to believe anything you have to say. i just read your post, like this one, and go off of that. stop pretending to speak for black women, or any group. im sure most of them aren't begging for your validation.

whats a "cuckold politically biased word?" you're so triggered you're just throwing random words together that doesn't make any sense. if you consider me disgusting, i'll take that as a compliment.

Only issue I have with it is it is wrong for any President to specify anything other than they will nominate the best person for the job.

Here you go SBD, big words aren't your thing, huh? :

cuck·old
/ˈkəkəld,ˈkəkōld/
Learn to pronounce
nounDATED
a man whose wife is sexually unfaithful, often regarded as an object of derision.
"jokes in literature about elderly cuckolds and misers are rife"
verb
(of a man) make (another man) a cuckold by having a sexual relationship with his wife.
"in the novel Humberto cuckolds his employer"

https://www.google.com/search?q=cuckold

Do you mean equality as in having 1 black woman on the SCOTUS out of 114 that have been on the SCOTUS? It doesn't quite sound like equality, but it's a start.

jc

In 2005, Bush was going to nominate Janice Rogers Brown to the supreme court. Senator Biden threatened to filibuster. So Bush picked Alito instead.

or it just had a deeper meaning.

These politicians are busy changing the narrative all of the time and people are just sitting there watching it, swallowing it whole, and telling everyone how wonderful it is on repeat. Because the tv and the democratic party said so.

Is equality having an equal amount of races representing their race or is it about having equal opportunity to the same job?

Currently, there are 9 Justices
How many are Hispanic?
How many are Latino American?
How many are Asian Americans?
How many are American Indians?
How many are Alaska Natives?
How many are Native Hawaiians?
How many are other Pacific Islanders?
How many are Middle Easterners?
How many are North Africans?
How many are Two or More Races?
How many are Other?

Personally, I don't think anyone should get an appointment to something like SCOTUS they need to fill their quota of black women. Again, that couldn't be more disingenuous if you tried.

Women or minorities were not treated anywhere near equal until around 100 years ago.
So, mentioning anything prior to the 1960's is pointless.
Since 1950 there have only been 24.

*We cannot control the stupid opinions of our country's thoughts or opinions on race or sex. Nor can we overcompensate today by giving someone a job based on their race or sex.

deeper meaning?

stop dancing around like some indecisive centrist and just say you dont want a black woman in the SC. that way you can get all the 13% and chicago/baltimore/detroit rhetoric out of your system and then claim you're just trying to bring up "both sides."

im sure you have a great friend who's black and noticed a nice black couple down the block as well.

your ridiculous insult didn't make any sense then, and looks even more ridiculous now that you tried to defend it. this is trump-level sad.

Hardly. All I hear is complaining from both sides no matter who is in office. And I bitch more about dems than you will ever know. BUT Dems and GOPers aren't living in the same reality these days. We watched plenty of swallowing whole when Trump was in office too. Probably the same for every POTUS, tbh.

110% truth. When something happens and it makes the news, there are actual facts of what happened. DEM TV tries to spin it their way. GOP TV tries to spin it their way. Meanwhile, the truth is destroyed and mangled to push a narrative that is driving a bigger wedge between the country.

I really wish there was something called fact TV and laws against people or stations adding opinions to the news. If someone were to inject their opinion or falsify information, they would go to prison for life without parole.

This convo took a weird turn.

I know a guy who was in the running as an astronaut for the Space Shuttle Program -- as a payload specialist. They start with thousands of applications, and then have phone interviews, the in person interviews, then medical tests, etc. He made it to the last 20 or so.

If you don't know, NASA Payload Specialist is a position that did (and I believe still does) require a PhD in Physics -- which he has.

At some point, he asked during the interview "What about this job really requires a PhD in Physics? -- It's basically just dealing with the nuts and bolts of the payload, and the entire procedure has already been determined by a team of hundreds of engineers."

And the NASA hiring people basically said "Nothing at all -- but if we don't require a PhD in physics, we will get 100,000 applications, 5000 of which are perfectly qualified. If we do require a PhD in Physics, then we will get 10,000 applications, 500 of which are perfectly qualified. And then - we get to say that we have a PhD in Physics on our Shuttle Team."

The Supreme Court is not particularly different. There are many more people who are qualified to be on the Supreme Court than there are Supreme Court Justice spots. Putting constraints on the candidate (race, gender, age, state that they come from) is honestly somewhat unlikely to result in a candidate of particularly lower quality.

I don't know if going back 114 justices is a good example.

So just for arguments sake, if equality is the criteria, should the NBA be 60% or more white?

Well if equality is the goal that sounds about fair.

If there are 60% of white players just as qualified and talented as the black players, sure. But there's not or they would be playing in the NBA. Under your scenario one would have to believe there is not black women just as qualified for the SCOTUS as any other race or gender. I don't believe that, do you?

j/c

Quote from Republican senator John Kennedy, who sits on the Judiciary Committee.

" I want a nominee who knows a law book from a J. Crew catalog ".

I guess we shouldn't be surprised by this.

this is what im talking about:

Lisa Cook could soon become the first Black woman on the Fed. Republicans say she's not qualified.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/lisa-cook-could-soon-become-114933185.html

just like whoever will be biden's SC nominee. it doesn't matter what he said or who he chooses. if it was a black woman being nominated, these republicans and their voters were gonna come with the BS anyway.

everybody knew it. everybody saw it coming. and the very people we all saw coming were the ones who got triggered by the truth being shoved in their faces, as usual.

and whats funny is that even in conservatives broken ass perspectives, what they say is illogical. do conservatives - specifically men - not remember why affirmative action had to be a thing in the first place?

the "know your history" and "proud of my heritage" crowd never likes to talk about their own history and heritage when it comes to that. all of a sudden, we gotta stop looking in the past and move forward. strange.

This was more of McConnell not wanting any of the 3 Biden nominees being appointed to their positions with the Federal Reserve.

Earlier today, the Senate Banking Committee voted to advance the nomination of Reta Jo Lewis to be confirmed as the first black female president to lead the Import-Export bank.

strange... a bunch of comments have been removed.

That is where you are wrong. I have already said I have no problem with a black female justice. I don't think along those lines. I am not in favor of any quota or equality along any group.

In my first post, my only complaint was in the President making the comment he was going to appoint a black female. I knew it was going to cause the problem it has caused. It could have been any named group that would have caused the problem. Even if that was the goal, fine, you just don't say it before hand. By doing so, the President has undermined his own appointment.

You can't say she is the most qualified, even if she is, if you limit the search to one specific group. I think you can understand that. Had a President said they were only going to appoint Christians, do you think that would go over very well? No need to answer, I know you wouldn't, nor would I.

No real disagreement. Those requirements are at least somewhat attainable across a wide spectrum of people, even if everybody can't attain a PhD in any field for various reasons. Becoming "white" as an example isn't attainable by a large segment of the population.

I find your comments rather odd. Trump said he would only nominate candidates who would overturn Roe vs Wade and I never saw you say a word about him limiting the candidates to a certain group. Presidents have stated they would be nominating a woman and I never saw you say a word. Actually the only difference between a president saying he will appoint a woman and that he will appoint a black woman is the word black.

I guess no other president could have said they nominated the best candidate for SCOTUS because they said they were going to appoint a woman?

I wasn't addressing your first comment in the thread. I was addressing the comment you made about white basketball players in the NBA.

Trump saying he would only appoint justices that would overturn Roe vs Wade was limiting his search to a certain group. Presidents who have proclaimed in advance they were going to appoint a woman limited their search to a specific group.

It seems the only real issue is with "this specific group".

And just so we're on the same page I'm not targeting you with that comment.

This might be beside the point, but he said that in the leadup to the nomination (IIRC). He then turned around and nominated Kavanaugh, how is super-duper pro-precedent.

Yet when it came to nominating a woman he stuck to his guns.

This was said before he nominated Amy Coney Barrett.

Less than two years ago, President Donald Trump vowed to nominate a woman to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He then appointed Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the vacancy.

"I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman," Trump said Sept. 19, 2020, during a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. He later added: "It will be a woman, a very talented, very brilliant woman. I haven’t chosen yet, but we have numerous women on the list."

Decades earlier, President Ronald Reagan said that if he were elected, he would nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court. "It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists," he said at a news conference weeks before the 1980 election, according to the Washington Post.

A year later, Reagan followed through, nominating Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...snt-first-prioritize-race-gender-pickin/

Just to add what one claims and what one does is often times different. This is actually what he has done since being appointed to the SCOTS. This involves the Mississippi abortion case that was presented before the SCOTUS.

Vox is a liberal rag which, at its worst, gives Fox News a run for its money in terms of fear-mongering and conjuring outrage.

https://time.com/longform/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court-first-term/

Kavanaugh voted with the more liberal justices in his first term as many times as he has with the conservative side. The issue behind his confirmation aside, the boogeyman on the court is probably ACB.

I actually gave you the evidence as to his opinion he gave and the cases he cited but your problem is the source that provided that information? You see, I don't disagree with you when it comes to the editorial and opinion pieces as it pertains to Vox. But that does not change the facts of his actions. And I didn't say he was an extreme right judge. We were talking about Roe vs Wade and which way he leans on the topic. That was the content being discussed. So the facts of what happened is dependent on who provides those facts?

Here's more. Please look at the facts and ignore the commentary.

Judge Kavanaugh and Reproductive Rights: A Fact Sheet

https://reproductiverights.org/site...h-and-Reproductive-Rights-Fact-Sheet.pdf

I think, despite his rulings being fairly neutral overall, certain online media choose to focus on only a portion of his rulings, amplifying certain parts and ignoring others (ex. Vox and reproductiverights.org... shocking).

IIRC, on the first point from your most recent point, Kavanaugh got hung up on specific federal precedent. The Feds wanted another step added before an illegal alien was granted an abortion after arriving in the US. On the second point, he sided with established religious rights.

I don't recall the third part.

The fourth part is interesting, because he's talking up a guy that didn't want to break with precedent to the point where he broke with the majority. My understanding here is that both Kavanaugh and Rehnquist are resistant to change regardless of the issue at hand. I find it curious that a site like reproductiverights.org would see this as a negative seeing as how Roe v Wade is now precedent.

The 5th part is pure supposition.

I really don't feel like hashing all of this out with you. I have shown you evidence of his standing on abortion rights. In the last link it points to a law review article that he wrote himself. You call that pure speculation. I've seen you provide zero evidence that would indicate he supports Roe vs Wade. He even refused to do so during his confirmation hearing when asked. If you have any decisions, opinions or papers he's written showing he supports a woman's right to choose in terms of abortion I would like to see it. If not it seems as though I'm the only one of us who has proved anything of substance here no matter how much you say, "nuh uh".

You provided links from Vox and an abortion activist site, so quit with the temper tantrum when I point out that a slice of media takes a very narrow and biased view of Kavanaugh. He's not perfect, but it drives me nuts when people flip out about certain decisions of his and totally ignore others.