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.

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.

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.

They cited actual papers and opinions that Kavanaugh himself had made and written. Your claim seems to be that what he decided and wrote mean nothing because of the source that reported those facts. The only one throwing a tantrum and made up scenario to discredit the things he did and said is you. Would it make you feel better if I found those same set of facts via a different source? I mean nothing would change except who is reporting these facts but if it would actually make you feel better.....

I am walking in to this at the end, and may not have all the facts or context, but no, it wouldn't make a difference which source you quoted.

The only caution I would add is that word context again. Nearly any opinion written is fairly long and detailed. It isn't hard to take a comment from one and craft it to fit another meaning without the entire context of the quoted portion.

I am not saying that is if you, or your source did, I didn't read the comment. I am saying this more as a general comment.

j/c…

Not much of a surprise. She was the front runner from the beginning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson

that resume is stacked.

Surely not - I have been told by many many people that because of Biden's announcement the nominee was going to be undeserving.

Well those people are morons, and not what was being discussed here.

As usual, resume won't be a possible sticking point. You can look at any sitting justice and see an impressive resume. You don't get to that point without. Resume is largely a starting point for any position.

If resume was the standard, then anybody on any court or job should meet our approval. Right?

I am not making any judgements one way or the other.... just saying.

Ketanji Brown Jackson was recently appointed and confirmed to the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit. Her nomination to the Supreme Court will open up a vacancy for Biden to appoint another judge to what is considered the second most powerful court.

She has to be confirmed, but she probably will.

She absolutely will be confirmed.

absolutely, she looks to be a good candidate and should be confirmed and I hope she does a great job upholding the laws of this country.



The only issue I have ever had with the whole thing is that Biden said was basically if you ain't black and a woman don't bother applying.

I agree. She just has to be.

I hope it isn't that cut and dried. Until she speaks, none of us have any clue as to her views.

I agree, she probably will be confirmed, and probably should. My comments weren't meant to be inflamatory, but some of the replies sure seem a bit slanted in that direction.

It is what it is....carry on.

My reply to your post was just a play on what you wrote and the two ways you can read "she has to be confirmed". Yes she needs to go through due process. I expect she will do great. Somewhere along the lines someone will grandstand and try to infer she isn't fit. That's the nature of politics in 2022.

We have seen that with court picks a lot longer than that.

Sadly that's what it boils down to. "Her views". The qualifications will show to be meaningless.

Honestly, this should 100% meaningless because a Supreme Court Justice should only read the law and make logical decisions based upon how the law is written without the interference of their political views.

I agree with you. That's why when presidents say they will only appoint what a nominee believes instead of how they would rule on law, it's very partisan. At the same time I think we must consider how flawed the constitution was in the beginning and how many times it's needed to be changed since 1776.

But even within the Law there are areas of interpretation. And that can be stretched very far, further than I ever realized.

I recently went to watch a production of "What the Constitution Means to Me" - I recommend going to see it if you get the chance.

In it I leaned that in a 1994 judgement Justice Scalia debated the definition of the word "Shall" .... It had a major impact and set precedent and I find it shocking.

https://www.denverpost.com/2005/07/14/what-does-shall-mean/

That's a terrible ruling.

The qualifications aren't meaningless. She wouldn't have been nominated without. Her views are important. Why in the world would you think they aren't?

Just because a person meets minimum qualifications for the job doesn't mean she is fit for the job. I don't know if she is or isn't. You somehow do?.

Well I can see you are a hard core supporter of hers by all the positive posts you have made in this thread.

I don't know. I had to pay to open the site. I guess you subscribe to the Denver Post.

Like I said, I don't know much about her. I don't have a position one way or the other at this point.

To me, that is the only position to take at this point.

I can agree with that. I don't know her from Adam, and usually form my opinions as the facts come out in the confirmation. Would have give ACB the nod of acceptance, had the pick not been stolen, like garlands spot. Kavanaugh was not a good pick and should not have been confirmed IMHO. Gorsuch, even though I dislike his politics, was qualified as well, but unfortunately his seat will always be tainted by the theft of the spot by McConnell. SO, setting politics aside, I want to know the person as much as I can before I decide how I feel about them. I don't truly like the left leaning Justices either, but they are at least qualified. The only justices I would unseat if I could is Kavanaugh and Thomas. I don't think Kavanaugh deserves the seat, and Thomas' cringe-worthy confirmation would have been a big NOPE from me, if I had a vote.

She meets all of joes qualifications....dems will always vote dems and the repubs wont challege anything because the dems already have the race and sexism cards drawn and pointed at their temples.. dont waste everyone time...rubber stamp this through.

It allowed me to read it for free. Maybe it's a communist web site.

Minimum qualifications? You must be thinking of someone else.

I think most understood it meant minimum qualifications for a Supreme Court justice since that is what was being discussed.

Since you didn't because you are just too dense or argumentative, now I have explained it for you. Following the bouncing ball of a ongoing conversation isn't all that hard.

I'd like to think being dense isn't the problem, so why not just get with the program and go with the conversation like a normal human?

You are the one that tried to minimize her to having the "minimum qualifications". I follow along with those type of things just fine. I know exactly when someone uses phrases to try and minimalize someone else. Maybe you don't even think about it when you do it. But that's what you did.

carry on

Agree... while I applaud nominating a black woman to the bench.... I would have preferred he publicly state that he would select the best candidate... but whatever... I don't know anything about Judge Jackson, so I appreciate the link above

Biden shouldn't get applauded for this. We could have had a black women on the SC in 2005, but Senator Biden threatened to filibuster the nomination, so Alito was nominated instead.

Yeah, well you might want to look at why instead of restricting it along racial lines. The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposed Janice Rogers Brown’s nomination “based on her record on the California Supreme Court where she exhibited ‘a strong, persistent, and disturbing hostility toward affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of individuals with disabilities, workers’ rights, and the fairness of the criminal justice system.’”

So no, it had nothing to do with her "being black".

Oppose the Confirmation of Janice Rogers Brown

https://civilrights.org/resource/oppose-the-confirmation-of-janice-rogers-brown/#

I don't think that Clarence Thomas has made any earth shattering civil rights decisions by being the second black Supreme Court justice. It probably falls the other way.

What matters more is how the person would align with the interpretation of the law and the constitution.

Just as Amy Coney Barrett would not be a vote for the pro-life crowd.

At this level political philosophy matters more that the persons race or ethnicity.

But if they think that a Black woman would be more inclusive, so be it. Personally they would be just as served by having former Alabama Senator Doug Jones (a white southern male), who was a strong civil rights attorney (as an example).