The New Supreme Court Justice
- Thread starter Valcazar
- Start date
Breyer announced he wouldn't resign until a replacement was agreed upon.
That may be the new normal, but totally a reaction to Mitch's handiwork in the past.
So if Mitch stalls, he stays.
New reality TV - Battle of the Network flip flops
Repugs are particularly strong these days...Maybe Mitch will hire Michael Avenatti like the Democrats did. ROTFLMFAO!!
Of course. The lefties, these days, have no regard for meritocracy, ability, accomplishments- it's all about virtue signaling and identity politics. Exactly what Jordan Peterson said in his resignation letter just last week.
I don't see any issues with this one. Neither Manchin or Sinema have any history of interfering in the nomination process, both of them are only interested in their corporate donors needs. It maintains a 6-3 court, which means no change in the dynamic.
There will he some hand wringing, the press will try make this one out to be a crisis when it isn't, and it will get done as a "win" for the mid terms.
The only question is how the Dems time it. Before the mid terms to try to show they can actually do something, or right after to use it as a distraction from other domestic policy failures. His "choosing" to go obviously came under pressure of some kind, and there is real fear of another RBG moment.
There will he some hand wringing, the press will try make this one out to be a crisis when it isn't, and it will get done as a "win" for the mid terms.
The only question is how the Dems time it. Before the mid terms to try to show they can actually do something, or right after to use it as a distraction from other domestic policy failures. His "choosing" to go obviously came under pressure of some kind, and there is real fear of another RBG moment.
What are you talking about? For the majority of the courts existence it was led by white men. In 1967 Thurgood Marshal became the first African-American named to the court by LBJ. There has only been one other, Clarence Thomas. In 1981 Reagan promised to put a woman on, which became Sandra Day O'Connor. Since then, four have gotten the nod. So, out of the 113 justices in the court's history, two have been African American, five have been women, and there has only been one Latino.
So, for the first 178 years it was all white and male. So, basically, in its 233 year history, only 1.75% have been black men, 6% have been women, and 0.9% have been Latina. So, you can go cry about how this is going against a meritocracy all you want, but I would also point out that Trump appointed both Brett Kavanagh and Amy Coney Barrett, who nobody would ever claim to be the cream of the crop in the American judiciary. They got appointed because the GOP thought they could use them to gain a majority and upturn established laws like Roe V. Wade. And I am willing to bet money that whomever Biden nominates will have better credentials than both of them.
But it is cute how you think you're making a point.
No white person or black male need apply. It's call diversity.
Biden vows to nominate Black woman to Supreme Court as Justice Stephen Breyer set to retire | CBC News
Biden vows to nominate Black woman to Supreme Court as Justice Stephen Breyer set to retire | CBC News
Last edited:
Do you mean when what used to be the GOP and their fearless leader announced that that they would only appoint a woman to improve the optics when they challenged Roe? Hence Amy Amy Coney Barrett. Is a white woman a better demonstration of diversity?
What a silly analysis. If you want to look at appointments by percentage, you'd have to look at what percentage of the bar was black at various points in time, what percentage were senior and well-respected counsel, what percentage were appointed to lower courts, what percentage of lower court judges who were black were thereafter appointed to a higher court, etc. etc.
There's no point looking for SCOTUS appointments to be 14% black until at least 14% of the bar is black, 14% of the most respected members of the bar are black, and on and on up the recruitment chain, etc. etc. It's going to take generations for that to happen.
By the the time it does, hopefully the legal profession might get their minds around the concept of merit, and all of this won't matter anyway.
Not really.
There will be several eminently well qualified Black, female judges who are able to do this task as well as any white male can. Affirmative action for Bench appointments is pretty standard anywhere.
Yes.
Like many presidents before him, he's narrowed the field from the hundred thousand or so qualified people.
Corporate donors really want more Federalist judges. Now, if the argument is that at 6-3 it isn't worth fighting to make it 7-2, then sure.
Of course there was fear of an RBG moment. RBG not retiring strategically was a disastrous choice.
The indications now are that they will do it as quickly as they can. They don't want the nomination butting up against the election, especially if they lose control of the senate.
They also don't want to have the nomination running parallel with the series of pro-corporate/pro-culture war judgments we expect in June.
And that's if you limit it to judges, which is a silly limitation (and not constitutionally required).
There are probably hundreds of thousands of people who can do the job so if you limit it to the top 1% (assuming you even have any kind of real metric that lets you determine that) you are going to have a couple of thousand of people to pick from.
Every name on the short list we've seen is completely qualified, moreso than Kavanaugh and Barrett.
I have to admit, the right wing noise machine going for "She will be unqualified because she is a black woman" before anyone was even announced surprised me. I thought they would just go the Sotomayor route of claiming she was dumb and unqualified after the fact.
Not just that.
It's a 50-50 tie.
All you need is for one Dem to get sick or injured and they can't confirm anyone if the GOP decides to be assholes about it.
