Stephen Breyer to retire at the end of this court session.

[Metaphor]

I have no idea why you think Trump could promise a judge that was against the desires of the population, make that clear in his campaign, and then win despite actively promising to go against the population.

Again, Dunning-Kruger.

You must think that the American electorate votes in POTUS.
They don't.
Tom

No, I don't think that.

If your prenise is that Trump failed to get the popular vote so everything he did as president is against the people or illegitimate, I don't know what to say.

 

[TomC]

I have no idea why you think Trump could promise a judge that was against the desires of the population, make that clear in his campaign, and then win despite actively promising to go against the population.

Again, Dunning-Kruger.

You must think that the American electorate votes in POTUS.
They don't.
Tom

No, I don't think that.

If your prenise is that Trump failed to get the popular vote so everything he did as president is against the people or illegitimate, I don't know what to say.

The last I recall, we were talking about something quite specific. SCOTUS nominations.

Biden promised a nominee that was impartial, but helped make SCOTUS more representative of the American people as a whole.

Trump promised a nominee that would not be representative of the American people as a whole. Nor impartial, but one who served a political agenda.

If you don't understand why this happened, you don't understand the USA as well as you seem to think you do.

I understand why people who don't live here or understand the socio-political landscape would fail to see this. I referred to it as Dunning-Kruger. It's complex.

But no. Trump promised a SCOTUS judge who opposes most American's moral views. Because it was politically advantageous for a losing candidate to do so.
Biden did not. Because he's a winner. All he promised was a SCOTUS nominee who made SCOTUS better resemble the American public.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

I have no idea why you think Trump could promise a judge that was against the desires of the population, make that clear in his campaign, and then win despite actively promising to go against the population.

Again, Dunning-Kruger.

You must think that the American electorate votes in POTUS.
They don't.
Tom

No, I don't think that.

If your prenise is that Trump failed to get the popular vote so everything he did as president is against the people or illegitimate, I don't know what to say.

The last I recall, we were talking about something quite specific. SCOTUS nominations.

Biden promised a nominee that was impartial,

So, he made a promise that was either delusional or an out and out lie.

but helped make SCOTUS more representative of the American people as a whole.

Oh. I see. So before when you said a nominee that 'matched the US population as a whole', you didn't mean that. KJB doesn't match the US population as a whole and no individual possibly could.

Trump promised a nominee that would not be representative of the American people as a whole. Nor impartial, but one who served a political agenda.

What on earth does 'not be representative of the American people' mean in this context? Spell it out to me, very specifically, like I'm the moron you accuse me of being.

If Trump promised to nominate a judge in line with his political taste, then he is doing what every POTUS does, but perhaps is more honest about it.

If you don't understand why this happened, you don't understand the USA as well as you seem to think you do.

I understand why people who don't live here or understand the socio-political landscape would fail to see this. I referred to it as Dunning-Kruger. It's complex.

Yes, I understand you feel like being nasty and pulling epistemological rank. I don't care. Answer my questions.

But no. Trump promised a SCOTUS judge who opposes most American's moral views. Because it was politically advantageous for a losing candidate to do so.

How do you know the judge Trump nominated opposes 'most Americans' moral views, and that the judge Biden nominated cannot be accused of same?

Biden did not. Because he's a winner. All he promised was a SCOTUS nominee who made SCOTUS better resemble the American public.
Tom

Yes, Biden made his sex and race discrimination explicit.

Both presidents nominated somebody in line with their political tastes, like all presidents do.

 

[Copernicus]

All we have is an online source that discusses the study, which is behind a paywall. So it's premature to jump to conclusions about what the study actually establishes or not. It's an interesting study, but the reported results are hardly surprising, as we know that race affects the rate at which people can get jobs. And the point made in this thread is that KBJ's race would have been such a barrier throughout her entire life, not just in matters such as appointments to high judicial position.

Except that it is not that simple. Harvard does not disguise it uses race in its admission policies, and it favours Latino and black applicants over white and Asian applicants in that respect.

Nor did Biden disguise that he was using race and gender as a basis for his first Supreme Court nomination. It was a very public campaign promise. The reasons these policies exist is because the pattern of discrimination against such groups in the past has been so egregious that a special effort must be made to redress the imbalance. That is why forced school desegregation happened in the 1960s and 1970s in the US. Without them, no change would have been possible--only empty rhetoric of the "separate but equal" nonsense that only reinforced the apartheid behavior that prevailed in the US at that time. Laws even had to be passed to prevent real estate agents from reinforcing segregation patterns by refusing to show black customers properties for sale in white neighborhoods. It didn't really do a lot to stop discrimination, but it accelerated the changes that ultimately led to someone of African descent being elected President and now a black woman being allowed to take a seat on the Supreme Court.

The primary reason that someone of her gender and race has finally made it to the Supreme Court, despite her excellent credentials, is that Joe Biden made a campaign promise in order to get an endorsement critical to his nomination. So race and politics played a factor in her getting the position, but race and politics have figured in just about every Supreme Court nomination in the past. Politics, because presidents and senators are politicians. Race, because race is a deeply emotional factor for Americans in political appointments. Systemic racism is real. That has nothing to do with whether there are other forms of discrimination at play. Even many of the senators who voted against KBJ acknowledged her qualification to serve on the court, but some have sought to justify their votes on purely political grounds rather than racial. In the past, senators would not even have embarrassed themselves to that extent, but hyperpartisanship, especially among Republicans, is considered more socially acceptable these days. It isn't about legal experience and qualifications anymore. It is about winning votes for their social agenda.

Do you believe Biden would have made a fairer search (by fairer, I mean not discriminated based on race and sex) for a Supreme Court justice had he not made a public promise to look for a black woman?

To be honest, no. I don't think that she would have stood much chance against white males with lesser experience and education in a competition for a seat on the Supreme Court. She was almost denied the seat this time by the Senate, and she definitely would have been rejected if a 2/3 majority were required for confirmation. Republicans would more likely have been amenable to confirming a white male nominee with similar credentials, partly because such a candidate would not have been perceived as enraging their base to the extent that a black female would. Any attempt to put forward a black female candidate would have been met with all sorts of public hubbub over the fact that there were "more qualified" white males and that her nomination was an attempt to allow an unqualified candidate jump the line merely because she was female and black. That hubbub came through during her nomination process, but Biden was not trying to hide the fact that he wanted a qualified woman of African descent to balance out the court. She brings unique experience that no justice on the Court has ever had in the past.

 

[Metaphor]

All we have is an online source that discusses the study, which is behind a paywall. So it's premature to jump to conclusions about what the study actually establishes or not. It's an interesting study, but the reported results are hardly surprising, as we know that race affects the rate at which people can get jobs. And the point made in this thread is that KBJ's race would have been such a barrier throughout her entire life, not just in matters such as appointments to high judicial position.

Except that it is not that simple. Harvard does not disguise it uses race in its admission policies, and it favours Latino and black applicants over white and Asian applicants in that respect.

Nor did Biden disguise that he was using race and gender as a basis for his first Supreme Court nomination. It was a very public campaign promise.

Well yeah, I know.

The reasons these policies exist is because the pattern of discrimination against such groups in the past has been so egregious that a special effort must be made to redress the imbalance. That is why forced school desegregation happened in the 1960s and 1970s in the US. Without them, no change would have been possible--only empty rhetoric of the "separate but equal" nonsense that only reinforced the apartheid behavior that prevailed in the US at that time. Laws even had to be passed to prevent real estate agents from reinforcing segregation patterns by refusing to show black customers properties for sale in white neighborhoods. It didn't really do a lot to stop discrimination, but it accelerated the changes that ultimately led to someone of African descent being elected President and now a black woman being allowed to take a seat on the Supreme Court.

The primary reason that someone of her gender and race has finally made it to the Supreme Court, despite her excellent credentials, is that Joe Biden made a campaign promise in order to get an endorsement critical to his nomination. So race and politics played a factor in her getting the position, but race and politics have figured in just about every Supreme Court nomination in the past. Politics, because presidents and senators are politicians. Race, because race is a deeply emotional factor for Americans in political appointments. Systemic racism is real. That has nothing to do with whether there are other forms of discrimination at play. Even many of the senators who voted against KBJ acknowledged her qualification to serve on the court, but some have sought to justify their votes on purely political grounds rather than racial. In the past, senators would not even have embarrassed themselves to that extent, but hyperpartisanship, especially among Republicans, is considered more socially acceptable these days. It isn't about legal experience and qualifications anymore. It is about winning votes for their social agenda.

Do you believe Biden would have made a fairer search (by fairer, I mean not discriminated based on race and sex) for a Supreme Court justice had he not made a public promise to look for a black woman?

To be honest, no. I don't think that she would have stood much chance against white males with lesser experience and education in a competition for a seat on the Supreme Court. She was almost denied the seat this time by the Senate, and she definitely would have been rejected if a 2/3 majority were required for confirmation. Republicans would more likely have been amenable to confirming a white male nominee with similar credentials, partly because such a candidate would not have been perceived as enraging their base to the extent that a black female would. Any attempt to put forward a black female candidate would have been met with all sorts of public hubbub over the fact that there were "more qualified" white males and that her nomination was an attempt to allow an unqualified candidate jump the line merely because she was female and black. That hubbub came through during her nomination process, but Biden was not trying to hide the fact that he wanted a qualified woman of African descent to balance out the court. She brings unique experience that no justice on the Court has ever had in the past.

I don't understand your first sentence. Are you saying Biden would have looked for a white male that was easier for Republicans to endorse, or he would still have looked for a black female?

EDIT: I guess it's a near-impossible counterfactual to imagine, but if Biden had picked a reliably conservative black female judge, do you think Republicans would have endorsed her? And if not, why not? Do you think they are just out and out racists?

 

[TomC]

What on earth does 'not be representative of the American people' mean in this context? Spell it out to me, very specifically, like I'm the moron you accuse me of being.

The majority of Americans support RvW.

I don't. But the fact is that most Americans do.

Trump promised to nominate SCOTUS judges that did not represent the majority of the American people, or electorate, because it was politically advantageous for him to do that. His base wasn't that big, nothing like a majority. Promising them that he would overturn the opinions of the majority got him a ton of votes.
Tom

 

[Copernicus]

I don't understand your first sentence. Are you saying Biden would have looked for a white male that was easier for Republicans to endorse, or he would still have looked for a black female?

EDIT: I guess it's a near-impossible counterfactual to imagine, but if Biden had picked a reliably conservative black female judge, do you think Republicans would have endorsed her? And if not, why not? Do you think they are just out and out racists?

I'm saying that it would have been easier for Biden to get more Republican votes with a white male than a black female. The reason that Clymer extracted that campaign pledge from Biden was that he felt the same way--that Biden would have made some effort for the sake of appearances but went for the easier choice.

The question of whether somebody is "racist" is a more complicated one, because there is a case to be made that we are all racists to some extent. That is, we react viscerally to superficial characteristics like skin color, gender, height, weight, etc. Racism invariably involves some kind of social stereotype, and I would say that an inordinate number of Republicans are what you would call "out and out racists". But I think that most racial discrimination is less conscious and less obvious. Most of the Republicans who voted against KBJ knew that she was fully qualified, but Republicans these days use political affiliation as a smokescreen for racial discrimination, because the fact is that about 90% of the black demographic vote reliably Democratic. They know that Biden won't pick a conservative Republican nominee, but they find it a lot easier to oppose a black woman than a white male nominee. And they can sell that as just voting against the nominee on ideological, rather than racist, grounds. It would be a little harder with a white male nominee.

A majority of Hispanics still do, as well, but they are trending more and more conservative these days. Nevertheless, Hispanics can be even more easily identified and discriminated against by name alone, and that has sometimes been a factor in voter suppression laws that target them, as well.

Because segregated neighborhoods still exist everywhere across the US, racial gerrymandering is a highly effective tool for reducing the chance of Democrats being elected to office in many states in the US. The Supreme Court, dominated by Republican political appointees, has found it useful to deem "political gerrymandering" legal as a way of getting around established laws against "racial gerrymandering". That is, it can't be racial gerrymandering if it is just designed to isolate and concentrate Democratic neighborhoods (which can be identified by racial or ethnic means).

 

[Toni]

All we have is an online source that discusses the study, which is behind a paywall. So it's premature to jump to conclusions about what the study actually establishes or not. It's an interesting study, but the reported results are hardly surprising, as we know that race affects the rate at which people can get jobs. And the point made in this thread is that KBJ's race would have been such a barrier throughout her entire life, not just in matters such as appointments to high judicial position.

Except that it is not that simple. Harvard does not disguise it uses race in its admission policies, and it favours Latino and black applicants over white and Asian applicants in that respect.

Nor did Biden disguise that he was using race and gender as a basis for his first Supreme Court nomination. It was a very public campaign promise. The reasons these policies exist is because the pattern of discrimination against such groups in the past has been so egregious that a special effort must be made to redress the imbalance. That is why forced school desegregation happened in the 1960s and 1970s in the US. Without them, no change would have been possible--only empty rhetoric of the "separate but equal" nonsense that only reinforced the apartheid behavior that prevailed in the US at that time. Laws even had to be passed to prevent real estate agents from reinforcing segregation patterns by refusing to show black customers properties for sale in white neighborhoods. It didn't really do a lot to stop discrimination, but it accelerated the changes that ultimately led to someone of African descent being elected President and now a black woman being allowed to take a seat on the Supreme Court.

The primary reason that someone of her gender and race has finally made it to the Supreme Court, despite her excellent credentials, is that Joe Biden made a campaign promise in order to get an endorsement critical to his nomination. So race and politics played a factor in her getting the position, but race and politics have figured in just about every Supreme Court nomination in the past. Politics, because presidents and senators are politicians. Race, because race is a deeply emotional factor for Americans in political appointments. Systemic racism is real. That has nothing to do with whether there are other forms of discrimination at play. Even many of the senators who voted against KBJ acknowledged her qualification to serve on the court, but some have sought to justify their votes on purely political grounds rather than racial. In the past, senators would not even have embarrassed themselves to that extent, but hyperpartisanship, especially among Republicans, is considered more socially acceptable these days. It isn't about legal experience and qualifications anymore. It is about winning votes for their social agenda.

Do you believe Biden would have made a fairer search (by fairer, I mean not discriminated based on race and sex) for a Supreme Court justice had he not made a public promise to look for a black woman?

To be honest, no. I don't think that she would have stood much chance against white males with lesser experience and education in a competition for a seat on the Supreme Court. She was almost denied the seat this time by the Senate, and she definitely would have been rejected if a 2/3 majority were required for confirmation. Republicans would more likely have been amenable to confirming a white male nominee with similar credentials, partly because such a candidate would not have been perceived as enraging their base to the extent that a black female would. Any attempt to put forward a black female candidate would have been met with all sorts of public hubbub over the fact that there were "more qualified" white males and that her nomination was an attempt to allow an unqualified candidate jump the line merely because she was female and black. That hubbub came through during her nomination process, but Biden was not trying to hide the fact that he wanted a qualified woman of African descent to balance out the court. She brings unique experience that no justice on the Court has ever had in the past.

Actually, white male senators had zero problem confirming white male justices with fewer/less good qualifications for the Supreme Court. See Kavanaugh, for one example.

 

[Bomb#20]

They know that Biden won't pick a conservative Republican nominee, but they find it a lot easier to oppose a black woman than a white male nominee. And they can sell that as just voting against the nominee on ideological, rather than racist, grounds. It would be a little harder with a white male nominee.

Justice Garland can certainly confirm that.

 

[Copernicus]

They know that Biden won't pick a conservative Republican nominee, but they find it a lot easier to oppose a black woman than a white male nominee. And they can sell that as just voting against the nominee on ideological, rather than racist, grounds. It would be a little harder with a white male nominee.

Justice Garland can certainly confirm that.

You have conveniently forgotten that Garland was never even allowed a hearing. His nomination never came to a vote. Why was that? McConnell wasn't going to take any chance that members of his own party would vote for the man. Why was that? Had Obama put forward a black female nominee, McConnell might not have been so nervous. Obama had picked Garland precisely because he was white male moderate who was popular with both Democrats and Republicans.

 

[Bomb#20]

They know that Biden won't pick a conservative Republican nominee, but they find it a lot easier to oppose a black woman than a white male nominee. And they can sell that as just voting against the nominee on ideological, rather than racist, grounds. It would be a little harder with a white male nominee.

Justice Garland can certainly confirm that.

You have conveniently forgotten that Garland was never even allowed a hearing. His nomination never came to a vote. Why was that?

Um, because McConnell didn't have to allow it? Because he wanted Obama not to get a SCOTUS appointment and having no hearing was the simplest and easiest way to stop it? Because if he held hearings then Republican stonewalling would be on TV making Republicans look dickish 24-7 through the course of the hearings, instead of over and done with after one dick move?

McConnell wasn't going to take any chance that members of his own party would vote for the man. Why was that? Had Obama put forward a black female nominee, McConnell might not have been so nervous.

That's a fanciful explanation. If you think McConnell wouldn't have pulled the exact same dick move on a black female nominee, what, seriously? Dick moves are kind of his speciality.

Obama had picked Garland precisely because he was white male moderate who was popular with both Democrats and Republicans.

But it’s so simple. All you have to do is divine from what you know of Republicans: are those nervousness-inducing criminals, who were used to McConnell not trusting them as he is not trusted by you, the sort of men whom Garland would be more popular with than some generic hypothetical alternative one of their Democrat enemies would be, because Garland was white and male, or because Garland was moderate?

Plato, Aristotle and Socrates are morons compared to you; we'll take your word for it that McConnell would surely have held hearings if only Obama had nominated a black female moderate.

 

[Copernicus]

They know that Biden won't pick a conservative Republican nominee, but they find it a lot easier to oppose a black woman than a white male nominee. And they can sell that as just voting against the nominee on ideological, rather than racist, grounds. It would be a little harder with a white male nominee.

Justice Garland can certainly confirm that.

You have conveniently forgotten that Garland was never even allowed a hearing. His nomination never came to a vote. Why was that?

Um, because McConnell didn't have to allow it? Because he wanted Obama not to get a SCOTUS appointment and having no hearing was the simplest and easiest way to stop it? Because if he held hearings then Republican stonewalling would be on TV making Republicans look dickish 24-7 through the course of the hearings, instead of over and done with after one dick move?

McConnell wasn't going to take any chance that members of his own party would vote for the man. Why was that? Had Obama put forward a black female nominee, McConnell might not have been so nervous.

That's a fanciful explanation. If you think McConnell wouldn't have pulled the exact same dick move on a black female nominee, what, seriously? Dick moves are kind of his speciality.

Obama had picked Garland precisely because he was white male moderate who was popular with both Democrats and Republicans.

But it’s so simple. All you have to do is divine from what you know of Republicans: are those nervousness-inducing criminals, who were used to McConnell not trusting them as he is not trusted by you, the sort of men whom Garland would be more popular with than some generic hypothetical alternative one of their Democrat enemies would be, because Garland was white and male, or because Garland was moderate?

Plato, Aristotle and Socrates are morons compared to you; we'll take your word for it that McConnell would surely have held hearings if only Obama had nominated a black female moderate.

Shifting the goal posts does not deter from the fact that Garland never even got a vote, so you actually proved nothing by comparing him to KBJ. McConnell might have been more amenable to following normal precedent, as prescribed by the Constitution, if Obama had not chosen a white male nominee who had support among enough Republicans to pretty much guarantee appointment. KBJ was extremely well-qualified, but McConnell was able to limit favorable Republican votes to just three Republicans, even when faced with extreme pressure to go with the politics. And all but one Republican senator rudely walked out of the chamber quickly after she won nomination, despite the fact that a number of no votes had publicly agreed that she had the experience and qualifications for the job. Many had treated her with shameful disdain and disrespect during the hearings.

 

[Bomb#20]

Shifting the goal posts does not deter from the fact that Garland never even got a vote, so you actually proved nothing by comparing him to KBJ.

"Shifting the goal posts"?!? You say that as though there were an original claim you proved. You've proved jack squat. You made a farfetched claim; I pointed out the elephant-in-the-room reason to consider it farfetched; and now you're all "you actually proved nothing" as though burden-of-proof were on me and all your farfetched claims are automatically true until somebody else disproves them.

The prima facie reason KBJ ever even got a vote is because the Democrats are in charge now.

 

[Copernicus]

Shifting the goal posts does not deter from the fact that Garland never even got a vote, so you actually proved nothing by comparing him to KBJ.

"Shifting the goal posts"?!? You say that as though there were an original claim you proved. You've proved jack squat. You made a farfetched claim; I pointed out the elephant-in-the-room reason to consider it farfetched; and now you're all "you actually proved nothing" as though burden-of-proof were on me and all your farfetched claims are automatically true until somebody else disproves them.

My original claim was that it is harder for Republicans to vote against a white male nominee than a black female one. You then made a sarcastic comment: "Justice Garland can certainly confirm that." The implication was that Garland's example was relevant to my original point. I proved it wasn't by pointing out that he was never given the courtesy of even having a vote, based on McConnell's disingenuous and hypocritical claim that Supreme Court nominees were not allowed confirmation by the Senate in an election year.

The prima facie reason KBJ ever even got a vote is because the Democrats are in charge now.

No it isn't. If McConnell were once again in power, she would have been voted down by a Republican majority, so there would be no reason to ignore the Constitutional provision that she become a justice "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate". Given that Biden's term in office is still early, he would have had no flimsy excuse to deny her nomination a vote, although maybe you are right that he would have tried to do that. It seems that Republican ideologues are getting more and more brazen about overturning the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution, but I'm not convinced that they are ready to make it a precedent that justices can only be approved for a seat on the Supreme Court when both the Senate and the presidency are under the control of the Republican Party, but I'll agree with you that it's certainly a possibility.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

My original claim was that it is harder for Republicans to vote against a white male nominee than a black female one. You then made a sarcastic comment: "Justice Garland can certainly confirm that." The implication was that Garland's example was relevant to my original point. I proved it wasn't by pointing out that he was never given the courtesy of even having a vote, based on McConnell's disingenuous and hypocritical claim that Supreme Court nominees were not allowed confirmation by the Senate in an election year.

Harder, but it's not going to make an iota of difference. The Republicans aren't going to approve anyone other than a fundie.

 

[Toni]

My original claim was that it is harder for Republicans to vote against a white male nominee than a black female one. You then made a sarcastic comment: "Justice Garland can certainly confirm that." The implication was that Garland's example was relevant to my original point. I proved it wasn't by pointing out that he was never given the courtesy of even having a vote, based on McConnell's disingenuous and hypocritical claim that Supreme Court nominees were not allowed confirmation by the Senate in an election year.

Harder, but it's not going to make an iota of difference. The Republicans aren't going to approve anyone other than a fundie.

Some crossed over.

We just have to make sure they lose Senators in the next elections.

 

[blastula]

Armed man arrested near Brett Kavanaugh's home charged with attempting to murder a US judge

He told law enforcement he had traveled from California to kill "a specific United States Supreme Court Justice."

www.cnn.com

The guy called 911 on himself. Hero and villain.

 

[Derec]

On Wednesday morning, Roske was carrying a suitcase and backpack filled with a tactical knife, a Glock 17 pistol, two magazines, ammunition, pepper spray and zip ties, the FBI said.
Roske also had on hand a hammer, screwdriver, nail punch, crowbar, pistol light and duct tape, the affidavit said.

I see no mention of any scary "assault weapons".
So I guess he was harmless or something ...

 

[blastula]

On Wednesday morning, Roske was carrying a suitcase and backpack filled with a tactical knife, a Glock 17 pistol, two magazines, ammunition, pepper spray and zip ties, the FBI said.
Roske also had on hand a hammer, screwdriver, nail punch, crowbar, pistol light and duct tape, the affidavit said.

I see no mention of any scary "assault weapons".
So I guess he was harmless or something ...

 

[ZiprHead]

Armed man arrested near Brett Kavanaugh's home charged with attempting to murder a US judge

He told law enforcement he had traveled from California to kill "a specific United States Supreme Court Justice."

www.cnn.com

The guy called 911 on himself. Hero and villain.

It was reported he was suicidal. He figured if he killed Kavenaugh his death would at least have some meaning. I'll chalk this one up to mental health issues.