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

[Elixir]

Not that intelligent. Or well-qualified.

Were those sentence fragments self referential?

You don’t REALLY fancy yourself to be anywhere near the intellectual caliber of a scotus justice, do you? Even a brown skinned female one?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

 

[Derec]

Were those sentence fragments self referential?

If you possessed a modicum of reading comprehension skills, you'd have realized that they were not.
Also, sentence fragments have a place in writing. Especially in informal writing. This is neither a legal brief nor an 8th grade English paper.

You don’t REALLY fancy yourself to be anywhere near the intellectual caliber of a scotus justice, do you?

I would favorably compare by intellectual caliber vs. THIS particular SCOTUS justice. I would really love to debate her on racial preferences. We could go into our backgrounds, too. Like, why should Spanish speakers, of all ethnolinguistic groups in the US, get this special treatment?

Even a brown skinned female one?

Her ethnicity nor gender don't make her less qualified per se. Affirmative action policies that select nominees based on race, ethnicity and gender, on the other hand, do make it more likely that less capable nominees are selected vs. deciding on individual merit alone.
What makes her an affirmative action beneficiary is really that she is a native Spanish speaker, not her skin color.
I mean, she is even the same shade as Gorsuch.

The only reason she counts as "brown" is her mother tongue. Discussions about race in the US are this silly!

 

[ZiprHead]

The only reason she counts as "brown" is her mother tongue. Discussions about race in the US are this silly!

And yet the only topics you bring up are racial or sexual in origin.

 

[Trausti]

The only reason she counts as "brown" is her mother tongue.

Heh. The Conquistadors were People of Color.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Kavanaugh and Barrett were exceptionally unqualified for a post that high, but they were being nominated by someone with even fewer qualifications for his job.

What makes them "exceptionally unqualified" exactly?
Kav graduated form Yale (BA, JD) without the benefit of AA, he worked in the White House and served on the DC Court of Appeals for 12 years.

His competence wasn't examined--that strongly suggests it was lacking. In hindsight I will say he's clearly unqualified--anyone who didn't vote against the abomination that's SB8 is letting ideology control them and is thus unqualified. Furthermore, I would consider anyone who gets a Federalist society endorsement unqualified.

Notorious ACB went to Rhodes and Notre Dame - not Ivy League but still good schools. She taught law at Notre Dame and George Washington. She worked at Advisory Committee for the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. She served on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals or three years.

How is this "exceptionally unqualified"?

ACB appears to have gotten just enough ticket-punching to get on the court at a young age.

No, it was hard to substantiate anything because Ford could not remember when or where that alleged assault allegedly took place.
As for the college incident, the accuser there was sure somebody *cleans glasses* took it out at a party, but could not remember exactly who until she talked to her lawyer and then she was suddenly sure it was Kav.
It was a partisan witch hunt.

Any real attempt to investigate the situation was suppressed--which strongly suggests they didn't think it would clear him.

Furthermore, piecing together details makes it pretty clear when and where. Furthermore, the nature of her memories make it clear something strongly emotional happened to her at that time. That, by itself, would not be enough for me to vote to convict. However, his reaction to the allegations are enough to convince me that said emotional event was extremely negative for her and rule out other likely causes--thus, sexual assault.

Note that in general I'm very negative on claims of long-ago assaults. Going into it I thought there was no chance I would be convinced.

Democrats were not even allowed to call witnesses who could have corroborated Ford's allegations under oath.

As far as I remember there were no such witnesses.

There were people she had told over the years. No investigation was permitted.

 

[Elixir]

I would favorably compare by intellectual caliber vs. THIS particular SCOTUS justice

That explains a lot.
(About your entertainment value)

As far as I remember there were no such witnesses.

Maybe your hilarious delusion of grandeur is related to your memory deficit.
The confirmation of that scumbag was a massive whitewash. Dozens of first hand witnesses were left out in the cold because Trump wouldn't let the FBI talk to them.

More than 20 individuals who know either Kavanaugh or Ramirez, who has accused the nominee of exposing himself to her while the two attended Yale University, have not heard from the FBI despite attempts to contact investigators, including Kavanaugh’s roommate at the time and a former close Ramirez friend.
...
One current and two former FBI officials confirmed to NBC News that dozens of witnesses have come forward to FBI field offices who say they have information on Brett Kavanaugh, but agents have not been permitted to talk to many of them.
...
Ramirez appears to be the only accuser who was interviewed as part of the current investigation.

That was the biggest debacle in the history of SCOTUS "confirmations".
link

Starting to come back to you yet, Your Imaginary Honor?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Were those sentence fragments self referential?

If you possessed a modicum of reading comprehension skills, you'd have realized that they were not.
Also, sentence fragments have a place in writing. Especially in informal writing. This is neither a legal brief nor an 8th grade English paper.

You don’t REALLY fancy yourself to be anywhere near the intellectual caliber of a scotus justice, do you?

I would favorably compare by intellectual caliber vs. THIS particular SCOTUS justice. I would really love to debate her on racial preferences.

We've currently have a poster who has proven evolution is a lie and submitted their paper to Nature for publication. I think your conversation with Sotomayor would go about as well as that guy's paper as far chances of publication. I'd love to have a conversation with Justice Sotomayor, because I think I could learn a few things from her. You think you can teach her something. LOL!

 

[Toni]

Were those sentence fragments self referential?

If you possessed a modicum of reading comprehension skills, you'd have realized that they were not.
Also, sentence fragments have a place in writing. Especially in informal writing. This is neither a legal brief nor an 8th grade English paper.

You don’t REALLY fancy yourself to be anywhere near the intellectual caliber of a scotus justice, do you?

I would favorably compare by intellectual caliber vs. THIS particular SCOTUS justice. I would really love to debate her on racial preferences. We could go into our backgrounds, too. Like, why should Spanish speakers, of all ethnolinguistic groups in the US, get this special treatment?

Even a brown skinned female one?

Her ethnicity nor gender don't make her less qualified per se. Affirmative action policies that select nominees based on race, ethnicity and gender, on the other hand, do make it more likely that less capable nominees are selected vs. deciding on individual merit alone.
What makes her an affirmative action beneficiary is really that she is a native Spanish speaker, not her skin color.
I mean, she is even the same shade as Gorsuch.

The only reason she counts as "brown" is her mother tongue. Discussions about race in the US are this silly!

Affirmative Action ensures that QUALIFIED candidates from under represented groups are given access to admissions and jobs. Affirmative Action did not win Sotomayor summa cum laude status.

 

[Elixir]

Affirmative Action did not win Sotomayor summa cum laude status

(Edited)

 

[lpetrich]

Looking at genetics, it seems to me that contemporary US racial categories are rather gerrymandered.

Some traditional racial categories:

•  Caucasian race or Caucasoid - Europeans, North Africans, Middle Easterners, South Asians
•  Mongoloid - eastern Asians
• Amerindoid - north, central, and south American
•  Australo-Melanesian or Australoid - Papua New Guinea, Melanesia, Australia
•  Negroid - "Sub-Saharan" African (south of the Sahara)

Population geneticists nowadays prefer to avoid these categories, and they prefer regional labels. They find a lot more fine-grained structure than these categories, and plenty of mixture, though these categories do emerge as genetic clusters.

 Human genetic clustering - clusters corresponding to the Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Australoid, and Amerindoid traditional classifications all appear.

That makes "white" rather gerrymandered, since by genetics, many Hispanics are effectively white because of having largely European ancestry.

AOC was jumped on by right wingers for once saying "Latinos are black", ignoring that she continued with "Latinos are Native, Latinos are European" and acknowledging the genetic mixture of Latinos / Hispanics. She also noted that in Puerto Rico, "good hair" is straight, while "bad hair" is tightly curled or Negroid.

I recall Madonna stating in an early-1989 Rolling Stone interview that in her childhood, she wished she was black, and that she tried to weave wire into her hair so that she could have braids that stick up. Which gives some perspective to racial inferiority complexes.

 

[Derec]

The only reason she counts as "brown" is her mother tongue. Discussions about race in the US are this silly!

And yet the only topics you bring up are racial or sexual in origin.

That is not true. But yes, we end up discussing race a lot on here. That is because our society deals with race a lot, and in a very unhealthy way.
For example, had Biden not pledged to only consider black and female candidates for SCOTUS justice, we would not be having a race- and gender focused discussion right now.

 

[blastula]

Derec, can you point to your complaints when Trump promised to nominate a woman as a justice?

 

[Derec]

His competence wasn't examined--that strongly suggests it was lacking.

No, it suggests that his interlocutors were far more concerned what he may or may not have done at the age of 17 than his competence or qualifications.

In hindsight I will say he's clearly unqualified--anyone who didn't vote against the abomination that's SB8 is letting ideology control them and is thus unqualified.

Do you apply the same to left-wing justices? Racial preferences clearly violate the equal protection provision of the 14th Amendment, which mans that "liberal" justices are "letting ideology control them and [are] thus unqualified".
Two things about SB8:
- I am against it too. That does not make that people that come to the opposite conclusion are ipso facto "unqualified".
- SCOTUS has not even ruled on the law as such, only on questions about whether Texas can be enjoined from enforcing the law before the final decision is rendered.

Furthermore, I would consider anyone who gets a Federalist society endorsement unqualified.

Why? Seems like a partisan position.

ACB appears to have gotten just enough ticket-punching to get on the court at a young age.

Honest question: why do you consider ACB advancing to a Court of Appeals "ticket-punching" but say KBJ's advancement not?

Any real attempt to investigate the situation was suppressed--which strongly suggests they didn't think it would clear him.

It is virtually impossible to clear somebody based on vague accusation from 30 years ago.
But do you really think a more through investigation would have yielded any real evidence of sexual assault? I do not.
In general, I do not think people should be subjected to unnecessary, politically motivated investigations and fishing expeditions.

Furthermore, piecing together details makes it pretty clear when and where.

So when and where was it?

Furthermore, the nature of her memories make it clear something strongly emotional happened to her at that time.

Let's assume "something emotional" happened. Does not make it sexual assault, much less by Kav.

Note that in general I'm very negative on claims of long-ago assaults. Going into it I thought there was no chance I would be convinced.

This accusation is no better substantiated than the rest. I think the reason you are amenable to it is your visceral dislike for the former president.

There were people she had told over the years. No investigation was permitted.

There were long Congressional hearings on the matter. I do not remember the details, but didn't she also lie about why her house had a second entrance installed?

 

[Derec]

That explains a lot.
(About your entertainment value)

Simple minds are easily amused.

Maybe your hilarious delusion of grandeur is related to your memory deficit.

It's neither delusion, nor grandeur. And forgive me for not wasting valuable "attic" space on a moot and most likely false accusation.

The confirmation of that scumbag was a massive whitewash.

It was a witch hunt. Quantity over quality. Every accuser less credible than the previous one, especially that woman dug up by Avenatti before his fall from grace.

 

[Derec]

We've currently have a poster who has proven evolution is a lie and submitted their paper to Nature for publication. I think your conversation with Sotomayor would go about as well as that guy's paper as far chances of publication.

Not at all. There is a big difference between actual science and a bullshit artist like AA Sonia.

I'd love to have a conversation with Justice Sotomayor, because I think I could learn a few things from her. You think you can teach her something. LOL!

Sadly, I don't think I can teach her anything, since she is so entrenched in her racist worldview to actually listen. But what I would ask her to explain why should people be treated differently by college admissions (and also in employment) based on their racial and ethnolinguistic background. For example, why should a young woman from a Puerto Rican family in Bronx be given preferential treatment by Princeton over a son of Russian immigrants from Brooklyn just because her family speaks Spanish and his Russian? I do not think she would have a good reply to that. Do you think otherwise?

 

[Derec]

Affirmative Action ensures that QUALIFIED candidates from under represented groups are given access to admissions and jobs.

Major league bullshit!
Actually Existing Affirmative Action (as opposed to President Kennedy's executive order that first mentions the term and is diametrically opposite of what AA has become!) is about giving PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT to certain groups based on their race, sex and ethnolinguistic group, and thereby DISADVANTAGING those who are not members of those groups.
Take Harvard. They are being sneaky about their admissions algorithm, but they admit, on average, far less qualified black students compared to especially Asian ones.

Affirmative Action did not win Sotomayor summa cum laude status.

That's not quite the flex you think it is. Latin honors are very watered down at schools like Princeton. They do not break it down between the three degrees here, but almost half of Princeton graduates receive one of the three Latin honors.
Note also that AA Sonia majored in history, which is one of the easiest majors. If she'd majored in hard sciences or engineering summa cum laude it would have been far more impressive.

 

[Derec]

Derec, can you point to your complaints when Trump promised to nominate a woman as a justice?

I don't think I have. First of all, Trump did not make that promise ahead of time like Biden. He did it after RBG died. Can you imagine the outrage had he nominated a man to replace her? So I can kind of understand why he had to do it even if I think it was the wrong thing to do.
Lastly, I voted for Biden, and have not voted for Trump. So I feel more of a need to criticize him, especially since Trump is so widely hated on here and I am not much of an echo chamber guy.

Dems though have nominated three women in a row to the high court. After Breyer, there will be no white men nominated by Democrats left on the court. Talk about lack of representation!

 

[Toni]

Affirmative Action ensures that QUALIFIED candidates from under represented groups are given access to admissions and jobs.

Major league bullshit!
Actually Existing Affirmative Action (as opposed to President Kennedy's executive order that first mentions the term and is diametrically opposite of what AA has become!) is about giving PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT to certain groups based on their race, sex and ethnolinguistic group, and thereby DISADVANTAGING those who are not members of those groups.
Take Harvard. They are being sneaky about their admissions algorithm, but they admit, on average, far less qualified black students compared to especially Asian ones.

Affirmative Action did not win Sotomayor summa cum laude status.

That's not quite the flex you think it is. Latin honors are very watered down at schools like Princeton. They do not break it down between the three degrees here, but almost half of Princeton graduates receive one of the three Latin honors.
Note also that AA Sonia majored in history, which is one of the easiest majors. If she'd majored in hard sciences or engineering summa cum laude it would have been far more impressive.

Cool Derec. You keep on telling yourself that Sotomayor. I'm also a science person and I am very well acquainted with the tendency to look down on history as an 'easy' subject.

If you want to think that yo are sooo much smarter than Sotomayor because you're an engineer, then cool. You be you.

I admire her intelligence and her hard work that has allowed her to accomplish so much.

Here's this about Sotomayor:

Background on Judge Sonia Sotomayor

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov

Sonia Sotomayor has served as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit since October 1998. She has been hailed as "one of the ablest federal judges currently sitting" for her thoughtful opinions,i and as "a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity"ii for her ascent to the federal bench from an upbringing in a South Bronx housing project.
Her American story and three decade career in nearly every aspect of the law provide Judge Sotomayor with unique qualifications to be the next Supreme Court Justice. She is a distinguished graduate of two of America's leading universities. She has been a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator. Before she was promoted to the Second Circuit by President Clinton, she was appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H.W. Bush. She replaces Justice Souter as the only Justice with experience as a trial judge.
Judge Sotomayor served 11 years on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, one of the most demanding circuits in the country, and has handed down decisions on a range of complex legal and constitutional issues. If confirmed, Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any justice in 100 years, and more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the past 70 years. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit, said "Sonia is an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind. She brings a wealth of knowledge and hard work to all her endeavors on our court. It is both a pleasure and an honor to serve with her."
In addition to her distinguished judicial service, Judge Sotomayor is a Lecturer at Columbia University Law School and was also an adjunct professor at New York University Law School until 2007.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We've currently have a poster who has proven evolution is a lie and submitted their paper to Nature for publication. I think your conversation with Sotomayor would go about as well as that guy's paper as far chances of publication.

Not at all. There is a big difference between actual science and a bullshit artist like AA Sonia.

In general, lawyers are trained to be BS artists. Their goal isn't to be right, but to win.

Sotomayor has served in the Federal Judicial system for nearly 30 years! She wasn't a stealth appointment like Amy Comey Barrett, who was given a spot immediately on the Appealate Court and then ascend to SCOTUS in less than 3 years. If Sotomayor was so clueless, it shouldn't be hard to point that out with the long trail of cases she has been involved with.

I'd love to have a conversation with Justice Sotomayor, because I think I could learn a few things from her. You think you can teach her something. LOL!

Sadly, I don't think I can teach her anything, since she is so entrenched in her racist worldview to actually listen. But what I would ask her to explain why should people be treated differently by college admissions (and also in employment) based on their racial and ethnolinguistic background.

And I think it is cute you don't think she'd knock that out of the park.

For example, why should a young woman from a Puerto Rican family in Bronx be given preferential treatment by Princeton over a son of Russian immigrants from Brooklyn just because her family speaks Spanish and his Russian? I do not think she would have a good reply to that. Do you think otherwise?

Yeah, quite easily so. And the second half of her answer would be about how Affirmative Action didn't give her the results of her effort. It only provided her with an opportunity. And with that opportunity, she graduated Summa Cum Laude at Princeton. She busted her humps on the Federal Courts. She wasn't given the priority track like Thomas and Barrett received, serving on lower courts for 1 and 3 years, respectively. She worked the Federal Court systems for 17 years before getting the nomination to SCOTUS.