• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

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

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,904
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
Ok, now I can't drink any fluids until he's replaced to prevent perpetual spit takes while Republicans complain.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,577
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Really, the GOP won SCOTUS, they don't need to interfere especially if it is a liberal judge. Now, if Thomas passed away, the GOP would be a tad bit more interested in interfering any legal or extra-legal way they could. But get ready for people being upset that white males aren't being considered and therefore reverse racism.
 

LoAmmo

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2020
Messages
164
Location
Ohio, U.S.
Basic Beliefs
atheist
But get ready for people being upset that white males aren't being considered and therefore reverse racism.
I know exactly what you mean, and that (as you know) there's really no such thing as reverse racism--there's simply racism.
But.
That said, I'm not 100% happy that Biden pre-announced his commitment to specifically confirming a black woman to the SC if given the chance to seat a justice.
Now, to be sure, personally, I'm gleefully looking forward to a YOUNG liberal justice, one as far left as they can force into the spot.

I just don't like the quota square-filling, not any more than I'd have liked it if Trump had specifically vowed to seat a white male justice if given the chance.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,049
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
But get ready for people being upset that white males aren't being considered and therefore reverse racism.
I know exactly what you mean, and that (as you know) there's really no such thing as reverse racism--there's simply racism.
But.
That said, I'm not 100% happy that Biden pre-announced his commitment to specifically confirming a black woman to the SC if given the chance to seat a justice.
Now, to be sure, personally, I'm gleefully looking forward to a YOUNG liberal justice, one as far left as they can force into the spot.

I just don't like the quota square-filling, not any more than I'd have liked it if Trump had specifically vowed to seat a white male justice if given the chance.
The fact is that the supreme court is, much like any body that is generally improved by well sourced perspective, needing of those responsible for filling it to fill it with perspectives so eclectic. This means focusing on new candidates of underrepresented backgrounds.

As much as you might not like needing to "check the box" we need representation of many walks that have seats of power who are more than "token".

Putting a non-white non-male there, especially the right one, is more needful than white or male.
 

TV and credit cards

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2013
Messages
4,343
Location
muh-dahy-nuh
Basic Beliefs
Humanist
But get ready for people being upset that white males aren't being considered and therefore reverse racism.
I know exactly what you mean, and that (as you know) there's really no such thing as reverse racism--there's simply racism.
But.
That said, I'm not 100% happy that Biden pre-announced his commitment to specifically confirming a black woman to the SC if given the chance to seat a justice.
Now, to be sure, personally, I'm gleefully looking forward to a YOUNG liberal justice, one as far left as they can force into the spot.

I just don't like the quota square-filling, not any more than I'd have liked it if Trump had specifically vowed to seat a white male justice if given the chance.
The fact is that the supreme court is, much like any body that is generally improved by well sourced perspective, needing of those responsible for filling it to fill it with perspectives so eclectic. This means focusing on new candidates of underrepresented backgrounds.

As much as you might not like needing to "check the box" we need representation of many walks that have seats of power who are more than "token".

Putting a non-white non-male there, especially the right one, is more needful than white or male.
It’s my understanding black women think differently than white men. From this I would surmise they would be inclined to ask questions that wouldn’t occur to a white man. In other words, yeah, “eclectic perspectives”.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,577
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
But get ready for people being upset that white males aren't being considered and therefore reverse racism.
I know exactly what you mean, and that (as you know) there's really no such thing as reverse racism--there's simply racism.
But.
That said, I'm not 100% happy that Biden pre-announced his commitment to specifically confirming a black woman to the SC if given the chance to seat a justice.
Now, to be sure, personally, I'm gleefully looking forward to a YOUNG liberal justice, one as far left as they can force into the spot.

I just don't like the quota square-filling, not any more than I'd have liked it if Trump had specifically vowed to seat a white male justice if given the chance.
The idea that Biden putting a black woman on SCOTUS sounds quite bad, when you think about the selection process. The exclusion of other races and genders seems pretty bad.

But on the other hand 0 black women have ever been nominated to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. Heck, she'll be only the third black person to be nominated in the history of our country. The first one was nominated in 1967. It would take about 25 years for the next, and more than another 30 for the anticipated third. So in that perspective, who fucking cares?!
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,577
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
But get ready for people being upset that white males aren't being considered and therefore reverse racism.
I know exactly what you mean, and that (as you know) there's really no such thing as reverse racism--there's simply racism.
But.
That said, I'm not 100% happy that Biden pre-announced his commitment to specifically confirming a black woman to the SC if given the chance to seat a justice.
Now, to be sure, personally, I'm gleefully looking forward to a YOUNG liberal justice, one as far left as they can force into the spot.

I just don't like the quota square-filling, not any more than I'd have liked it if Trump had specifically vowed to seat a white male justice if given the chance.
The fact is that the supreme court is, much like any body that is generally improved by well sourced perspective, needing of those responsible for filling it to fill it with perspectives so eclectic. This means focusing on new candidates of underrepresented backgrounds.

As much as you might not like needing to "check the box" we need representation of many walks that have seats of power who are more than "token".

Putting a non-white non-male there, especially the right one, is more needful than white or male.
It’s my understanding black women think differently than white men. From this I would surmise they would be inclined to ask questions that wouldn’t occur to a white man. In other words, yeah, “eclectic perspectives”.
I'll let Leslie Jones or Wanda Sykes take up that line. I ain't touching it with a 40-ft pole.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,583
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
I'm not comfortable with using race and gender as a criterion for considering an appointment to the Supreme Court. That's why I've never been happy about such appointments my entire life, not to mention being happy about all the appointments ever made in the past. If it were another white male, Biden would be criticized for his racial choice and gender choice. If it were a black male, he would be criticized for his racial choice and gender choice. He could have just kept his mouth shut about his intentions and biases and just appointed a black woman, but he wanted to use it as a way to help get him elected--same as Trump promising to appoint anti-abortion justices, which boy did he ever. This new appointment will be competent and liberal. That's what really concerns me. The court needs more balance, and I don't particularly care what kind of package it comes in.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,068
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
He could have just kept his mouth shut about his intentions and biases and just appointed a black woman
^ that
Biden is a crap orator and is surprisingly naive about reading the political landscape. It will be a forkin’ miracle if he gets re-elected.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,583
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
He could have just kept his mouth shut about his intentions and biases and just appointed a black woman
^ that
Biden is a crap orator and is surprisingly naive about reading the political landscape. It will be a forkin’ miracle if he gets re-elected.
Biden has always been a poor orator and, worse, a gaffe machine. After four years of Trump, he didn't need to be a brilliant orator, and he did have more experience than any of the other candidates, most of whom were much better speakers. I'm not sure that any of them could have beaten Trump as well as Biden did, and I don't think that any of the others would have done better in getting legislation passed and damage repaired than he did in his first year. He isn't really capable of saving the Democratic Party from itself in an off-year election, so I'm not going to blame him too much for losing both the House and the Senate, if that happens. He is in a no-win job and has insufficient votes in Congress to pass his more ambitious proposals. He is really too old for the job and won't be in a good position to beat just about any Republican other than Donald Trump, if Trump to choose to run again. I agree that it would be a miracle for him to get re-elected, but I'm struggling to find a Democrat that I think will have a better chance in a country that is so hopelessly gerrymandered for conservative candidates by the electoral college system.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,049
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
But get ready for people being upset that white males aren't being considered and therefore reverse racism.
I know exactly what you mean, and that (as you know) there's really no such thing as reverse racism--there's simply racism.
But.
That said, I'm not 100% happy that Biden pre-announced his commitment to specifically confirming a black woman to the SC if given the chance to seat a justice.
Now, to be sure, personally, I'm gleefully looking forward to a YOUNG liberal justice, one as far left as they can force into the spot.

I just don't like the quota square-filling, not any more than I'd have liked it if Trump had specifically vowed to seat a white male justice if given the chance.
The fact is that the supreme court is, much like any body that is generally improved by well sourced perspective, needing of those responsible for filling it to fill it with perspectives so eclectic. This means focusing on new candidates of underrepresented backgrounds.

As much as you might not like needing to "check the box" we need representation of many walks that have seats of power who are more than "token".

Putting a non-white non-male there, especially the right one, is more needful than white or male.
It’s my understanding black women think differently than white men. From this I would surmise they would be inclined to ask questions that wouldn’t occur to a white man. In other words, yeah, “eclectic perspectives”.
I'll let Leslie Jones or Wanda Sykes take up that line. I ain't touching it with a 40-ft pole.
Black women have lived a different perspective on society, generally, than white men.

Eclectic perspectives.

It doesn't even mean they think differently, though there have been some deep brain tensor imaging studies that indicate that some processes do happen differently across gender. Race, not so much.

It does mean that they have different thoughts on account of being treated differently by the world.

It is the perspective exactly on treatment that I find so valuable.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,636
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
He could have just kept his mouth shut about his intentions and biases and just appointed a black woman
^ that
Biden is a crap orator and is surprisingly naive about reading the political landscape. It will be a forkin’ miracle if he gets re-elected.
Biden has always been a poor orator and, worse, a gaffe machine. After four years of Trump, he didn't need to be a brilliant orator, and he did have more experience than any of the other candidates, most of whom were much better speakers. I'm not sure that any of them could have beaten Trump as well as Biden did, and I don't think that any of the others would have done better in getting legislation passed and damage repaired than he did in his first year. He isn't really capable of saving the Democratic Party from itself in an off-year election, so I'm not going to blame him too much for losing both the House and the Senate, if that happens. He is in a no-win job and has insufficient votes in Congress to pass his more ambitious proposals. He is really too old for the job and won't be in a good position to beat just about any Republican other than Donald Trump, if Trump to choose to run again. I agree that it would be a miracle for him to get re-elected, but I'm struggling to find a Democrat that I think will have a better chance in a country that is so hopelessly gerrymandered for conservative candidates by the electoral college system.
Well, Biden was capable of getting elected and is a decent human being. I don't think Sanders had a hope of a prayer of a chance and I think Warren would have been a real toss up. Not because Warren wouldn't have been an excellent choice but because she's female and a for a lot of people, including some fairly left leaning people, that's just a bridge too far. They would NEVER say that and don't believe that's what they think but I've never heard them offer anything but criticism for any prominent female with presidential aspirations. Now, some years down the line if they can convince Katie Porter to run, that will be a real litmus test. I hope she does run.

That said, all the prominent candidates for POTUS in 2020 were too old: DJT, Sanders, Biden, and Warren, with Warren seeming the most hale and hearty of the pack. She could run rings around all of them. Literally, I think. Even Biden who is in pretty good shape for his age.

Harris was up there as well but I think that she would never have overcome the double whammy of skin color plus gender. Mayor Pete? Nope. Lots of my queer friendly leftist friends and family were fairly outraged by some of his actions as mayor. Again, a bridge too far.

Personally, I don't consider age, skin color or sexual orientation to be a bridge too far to vote for any of the candidates I mentioned. DJT was unacceptable for obvious reasons that became even more obvious every single day he was in power. Sanders is too old and isn't able to work well with anyone except the young people who are charmed by the idea of a grumpy old man mentoring them.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,068
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Now, some years down the line if they can convince Katie Porter to run, that will be a real litmus test. I hope she does run.
Amen.
I am afraid we missed our chance.
Sanders would have won handily against the pants-crapping mob boss in 2016. But the Dem Party machine threw away the chance; they do not support progressives.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,012
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Madeline Peltz on Twitter: "Tomi Lahren: I'm wondering what kind of justice he will nominate, I'm sure it will be, as Guy said, a Black woman ... we saw how well that worked out with Kamala Harris (vid link)" / Twitter

Elie Mystal on Twitter: "The amazing thing to me is that conservatives are giving into their racist instincts even though THEY'RE ALREADY WINNING. It's a 6-3 Court. It's gonna *stay* a 6-3 Court. Why you gotta denigrate all black women when the pick can't do ANYTHING to stop your ideological crusade?" / Twitter

Elie Mystal on Twitter: "It's like somebody serving me a side salad with my rack of ribs, and me throwing a hissy fit, throwing the salad on the ground and stomping on it like a baby. I STILL GET THE RIBS, I STILL GET TO BE FAT. The salad is just there to freaking TRY." / Twitter

Tracie Hunte on Twitter: "@ElieNYC I was also, sadly, thinking this. Like why should it even be a tough confirmation? Nothing will change. Liberals are only getting a new person to write dissents." / Twitter

Elie Mystal on Twitter: "@TracieHunte right?
These freaking people replaced Thurgood Marshall with the most conservative person with a Black face they could find ON THE PLANET... and they're throwing a fit because we're replacing a liberal white guy with a liberal black woman? DON'T THEY HAVE ANYTHING BETTER TO DO?" / Twitter


As if right-wingers think that they are the only ones with the right to play identity politics.

I suspect that right-wingers will nominate Candace Owens, because she is the most prominent right-wing black woman.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,636
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Now, some years down the line if they can convince Katie Porter to run, that will be a real litmus test. I hope she does run.
Amen.
I am afraid we missed our chance.
Sanders would have won handily against the pants-crapping mob boss in 2016. But the Dem Party machine threw away the chance; they do not support progressives.
No, I don't think he would have won. And if he had, by some miracle, defeated Trump, he would be extremely ineffective. I am very familiar with the devotion he generates among his fans but he would have been seen as way too far left for the GOP defectors and unaffiliated to have voted for. They would have found and mounted a 3rd party candidate with a name and we would have ended up with DJT.

Let's face it: on merit, what comes out of my dog's back end would have been infinitely preferable to DJT, on merit alone. Aside from his various cabinet members and other cronies, you couldn't come up with a known name of anyone who would not be a vast improvement over DJT in terms of character and competence and qualifications.
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,904
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
The democrats shouldn't let the republican complaints be about their pick, it should be about democrats jamming through their pick without any regard to republicans. :cautious:
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,583
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
The democrats shouldn't let the republican complaints be about their pick, it should be about democrats jamming through their pick without any regard to republicans. :cautious:
I hope that it will run smoothly enough that they can bring it off. However, Democrats don't have the votes without Manchin and Sinema. So either of those two could kill any nominee that Biden picks. He'll need to at least consult them before nominating anyone, and they will hold veto power over him. Right now, it looks like Manchin will be amenable, but he has a reputation for reversing himself from one day to the next. Sinema is completely unpredictable, except that she seems to enjoy having everyone talk about her, even when what they are saying isn't flattering. Maybe both Manchin and Sinema will let this one pass without putting their stamp of disapproval on it. We'll be lucky if that happens.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
Joined
Jul 28, 2000
Messages
19,012
Location
Eugene, OR
Gender
Male
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Stephen Breyer Tried to Compromise On An Increasingly Uncompromising Supreme Court | FiveThirtyEight

Biden is delivering on his promise to diversify the courts
Share of nonwhite and female appointees of appellate and district judges appointed by presidents since Jimmy Carter during their first year in office
PresidentNonwhite %Female %
Carter10##3
Reagan32
Bush I7#20####
Clinton26#####37########
Bush II18####28######
Obama46#########46#########
Trump9##18####
Biden72##############75###############

So a black female Supreme Court Justice would be in character with Joe Biden's other picks.
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,904
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
The democrats shouldn't let the republican complaints be about their pick, it should be about democrats jamming through their pick without any regard to republicans. :cautious:
I hope that it will run smoothly enough that they can bring it off. However, Democrats don't have the votes without Manchin and Sinema. So either of those two could kill any nominee that Biden picks. He'll need to at least consult them before nominating anyone, and they will hold veto power over him. Right now, it looks like Manchin will be amenable, but he has a reputation for reversing himself from one day to the next. Sinema is completely unpredictable, except that she seems to enjoy having everyone talk about her, even when what they are saying isn't flattering. Maybe both Manchin and Sinema will let this one pass without putting their stamp of disapproval on it. We'll be lucky if that happens.

Well if anything indicates whether or not they both plan on stepping down next election it would be how they handle this nomination. They're already on thin ice so if they pull their usual shenanigans they are guaranteed to get voted out regardless of anything they do at that point.

With that said, I appreciate what they both do (not why they do it), as I'm not a "party over people" person. Each state representative is exactly that, a representative of the state and all who live there. These days everyone is either doing party line shit or big doner shit (mostly the latter). Back in the ole slave-owning days, politicians were mostly on some ole USA against the world shit now it's mainly every American for themselves shit (while still screwing up the world).

My guess is that's because the more common folk got a say in government in hopes to score a win for the team the more the elites moved goalposts.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
6,438
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
I'm not worried about Manchin. He's already said that he has no problem voting for someone who is a lot more liberal than him. He's supported all of the 42 lower court justices that Biden has chosen. Three Republicans voted in favor of some of those justices as well. Sinema said she will review their qualifications. I seriously doubt that she will vote against the nominee. They only need 50 votes. It's not going to be that hard, although it may be lengthy. I'm pleased that Biden has promised to appoint a Black female. The courts should reflect the diversity of the country. For far too long, SCOTUS was a pack of privileged white males. I may be in the minority, but I look forward to seeing a sharp, experienced Black women on SCOTUS.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,583
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
I just hope that they move the nomination forward as quickly as possible. All it would take would be for one of those 50 Democrats to become unavailable, and the Senate would quickly flip to Republican control. At this point, I think that McConnell would block any nominee from a Democratic president, no matter how long it took. Republicans have already shown that they have far stronger party loyalty than Democrats, no matter how much they don't like the people in charge of Republican policies. That goes for both Republican voters and Republican elected officials.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
9,049
Gender
No pls.
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
I just hope that they move the nomination forward as quickly as possible. All it would take would be for one of those 50 Democrats to become unavailable, and the Senate would quickly flip to Republican control. At this point, I think that McConnell would block any nominee from a Democratic president, no matter how long it took. Republicans have already shown that they have far stronger party loyalty than Democrats, no matter how much they don't like the people in charge of Republican policies. That goes for both Republican voters and Republican elected officials.
Because the one binding principle is they all seek the opportunity to be evil as they may, and sometimes that means accepting evil above them and so upon.

As long as they give more than they get.

They don't even have to use the word evil, or know it.
 

Trausti

Contributor
Warning Level 1
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
9,736
Location
Northwest
Gender
Who/Whom
Basic Beliefs
Atheist Norse

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,636
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Biden is delivering on his promise to diversify the courts

Wut?


Her nomination to the Court of Appeals was stalled for nearly two years as part of Democratic opposition to appointments made by George W. Bush.

OMG Democrats opposed the nomination of a conservative jurist. How shocking.
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,226
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
Smart move on Breyer's part, this will actually be a very non-momentous replacement. Very little grounds for contention, unless Biden does something extremely bone-headed in his appointment.

Yes, it will be a "check the diversity boxes" appointment. Technical qualifications will come a distant second.
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,226
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
Biden is delivering on his promise to diversify the courts

Wut?


Her nomination to the Court of Appeals was stalled for nearly two years as part of Democratic opposition to appointments made by George W. Bush.

OMG Democrats opposed the nomination of a conservative jurist. How shocking.
But her diversity checkboxes should be the primary consideration!
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,636
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Biden is delivering on his promise to diversify the courts

Wut?


Her nomination to the Court of Appeals was stalled for nearly two years as part of Democratic opposition to appointments made by George W. Bush.

OMG Democrats opposed the nomination of a conservative jurist. How shocking.
But her diversity checkboxes should be the primary consideration!
Only in the minds of anti-liberals. Actually, her diversity checkboxes were probably exactly why she was selected--they got a conservative AND could claim that they made a color/gender blind selection which was obviously quite the opposite.
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,226
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
Biden is delivering on his promise to diversify the courts

Wut?


Her nomination to the Court of Appeals was stalled for nearly two years as part of Democratic opposition to appointments made by George W. Bush.

OMG Democrats opposed the nomination of a conservative jurist. How shocking.
But her diversity checkboxes should be the primary consideration!
Only in the minds of anti-liberals.

HA!

Actually, her diversity checkboxes were probably exactly why she was selected--they got a conservative AND could claim that they made a color/gender blind selection which was obviously quite the opposite.

So diversity checkboxes aren't racist when liberals do it but are racist when conservatives do it. Got it.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,636
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Biden is delivering on his promise to diversify the courts

Wut?


Her nomination to the Court of Appeals was stalled for nearly two years as part of Democratic opposition to appointments made by George W. Bush.

OMG Democrats opposed the nomination of a conservative jurist. How shocking.
But her diversity checkboxes should be the primary consideration!
Only in the minds of anti-liberals.

HA!

Actually, her diversity checkboxes were probably exactly why she was selected--they got a conservative AND could claim that they made a color/gender blind selection which was obviously quite the opposite.

So diversity checkboxes aren't racist when liberals do it but are racist when conservatives do it. Got it.
We need a conservative but let's make it difficult for our opponents to oppose our nominee by choosing someone who is black and female ---yeah, that's racist and sexist.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,145
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
any
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Technical qualifications will come a distant second.
What "technical qualifications"? The Constitution defines no requirements for a Supreme Court Justice except for the discretion of the President and the approval of the Congress. They don't even have to be a citizen, speak English, or practice law. So what technical qualifications are you referring to?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,577
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Smart move on Breyer's part, this will actually be a very non-momentous replacement. Very little grounds for contention, unless Biden does something extremely bone-headed in his appointment.

Yes, it will be a "check the diversity boxes" appointment. Technical qualifications will come a distant second.
There are likely hundreds to thousands of technically qualified people for SCOTUS. It is impossible to get to this level of consideration without "technical qualifications".
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
35,577
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Racism would technically require the intent of selecting justices of a specific that would ensure the negation of rights of other races.

Biden nominating the first black woman ever to the SCOTUS (third black nominee ever) would also not be racist, even if her race identity was part of the reason for her selection.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,583
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
Smart move on Breyer's part, this will actually be a very non-momentous replacement. Very little grounds for contention, unless Biden does something extremely bone-headed in his appointment.

Yes, it will be a "check the diversity boxes" appointment. Technical qualifications will come a distant second.
There are likely hundreds to thousands of technically qualified people for SCOTUS. It is impossible to get to this level of consideration without "technical qualifications".
Jason has not indicated what he thinks the "technical qualifications" are, but we certainly want someone who is more then technically qualified. Unfortunately, Republicans and conservatives have not made a secret of their own "technical qualifications"--very likely to overturn laws that Democrats and liberals tend to support, especially those that allow women to control reproductive rights. The qualifications of Kavanaugh and Barret were negligible in terms of experience but high in terms of social and political agenda. That a Democratic president would similarly consider social and political agendas should come as no surprise, but Biden will likely also place more emphasis on competence and experience. All presidents have considered race and gender when choosing likely nominees to vet. Race and gender have never not been considered. Ditto for religion.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
29,819
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
All the way back to Reagan who said he would appoint a woman and he did.
 

Copernicus

Industrial Grade Linguist
Joined
May 28, 2017
Messages
3,583
Location
Bellevue, WA
Basic Beliefs
Atheist humanist
All the way back to Reagan who said he would appoint a woman and he did.
And before then, since the act of appointing a woman only became socially feasible by Reagan's time. He was not doing well with women in the polls before his election, so Sandra Day O'Connor really helped him. Now that Biden has done something similar over 40 years later, Republicans are outraged. They were holding in their outrage during the Trump administration, so now they finally have an outlet for their righteous indignation.
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,226
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
Biden is delivering on his promise to diversify the courts

Wut?


Her nomination to the Court of Appeals was stalled for nearly two years as part of Democratic opposition to appointments made by George W. Bush.

OMG Democrats opposed the nomination of a conservative jurist. How shocking.
But her diversity checkboxes should be the primary consideration!
Only in the minds of anti-liberals.

HA!

Actually, her diversity checkboxes were probably exactly why she was selected--they got a conservative AND could claim that they made a color/gender blind selection which was obviously quite the opposite.

So diversity checkboxes aren't racist when liberals do it but are racist when conservatives do it. Got it.
We need a conservative but let's make it difficult for our opponents to oppose our nominee by choosing someone who is black and female ---yeah, that's racist and sexist.
That's entirely different from "We need a liberal but let's make it difficult for our opponents to oppose our nominee by choosing someone who is black and female". It is only racist when one side does it, it isn't racist when the other side does the exact same thing.
 

Gospel

Warning Level 9999
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
2,904
Location
Florida
Gender
Masculine
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
All the way back to Reagan who said he would appoint a woman and he did.

Don't tell Trump and his worshipers I said this but he was the first celebrity president. Trump was not unique at all.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,636
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
Biden is delivering on his promise to diversify the courts

Wut?


Her nomination to the Court of Appeals was stalled for nearly two years as part of Democratic opposition to appointments made by George W. Bush.

OMG Democrats opposed the nomination of a conservative jurist. How shocking.
But her diversity checkboxes should be the primary consideration!
Only in the minds of anti-liberals.

HA!

Actually, her diversity checkboxes were probably exactly why she was selected--they got a conservative AND could claim that they made a color/gender blind selection which was obviously quite the opposite.

So diversity checkboxes aren't racist when liberals do it but are racist when conservatives do it. Got it.
We need a conservative but let's make it difficult for our opponents to oppose our nominee by choosing someone who is black and female ---yeah, that's racist and sexist.
That's entirely different from "We need a liberal but let's make it difficult for our opponents to oppose our nominee by choosing someone who is black and female". It is only racist when one side does it, it isn't racist when the other side does the exact same thing.
Except that most liberals don't have problems with black or female candidates. In fact, most liberals can see the benefit of gaining a different perspective than the typical white/male.
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,226
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
We need a conservative but let's make it difficult for our opponents to oppose our nominee by choosing someone who is black and female ---yeah, that's racist and sexist.
That's entirely different from "We need a liberal but let's make it difficult for our opponents to oppose our nominee by choosing someone who is black and female". It is only racist when one side does it, it isn't racist when the other side does the exact same thing.
Except that most liberals don't have problems with black or female candidates. In fact, most liberals can see the benefit of gaining a different perspective than the typical white/male.
Sure. It's not like words like "token", "Uncle Tom", or "Black face of White Supremacy" have ever been uttered by liberals furious that minorities have left the plantation. Minorities who are tired of being treated like property are constantly denigrated that way.
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
14,636
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
We need a conservative but let's make it difficult for our opponents to oppose our nominee by choosing someone who is black and female ---yeah, that's racist and sexist.
That's entirely different from "We need a liberal but let's make it difficult for our opponents to oppose our nominee by choosing someone who is black and female". It is only racist when one side does it, it isn't racist when the other side does the exact same thing.
Except that most liberals don't have problems with black or female candidates. In fact, most liberals can see the benefit of gaining a different perspective than the typical white/male.
Sure. It's not like words like "token", "Uncle Tom", or "Black face of White Supremacy" have ever been uttered by liberals furious that minorities have left the plantation. Minorities who are tired of being treated like property are constantly denigrated that way.
I think you are confused.

Do I think any political party or any political ideology has a stellar record with regards to race and/or sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc? Including recently? Nope. People are people are people are people and all of us are flawed.

As far as I can see, it's not the left who's going nuts over the idea that Biden will nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court. Oh, sure some think that he should nominate Kamala Harris (???) because they can't think of any other qualified black woman. Hey, I'm not up on my well experienced jurists myself, of any race, creed, gender, or political bent. I do, however, feel very comfortable that Biden will appoint a well qualified candidate (with several back ups) who are going to be female and black and it's about goddam time someone did.
 
Top Bottom