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

[thebeave]

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.

Anyone remember when Bush I said he would nominate another black man to replace Thurgood Marshall? We got Clarence Thomas, maybe the most partisan judge to ever sit on the bench. And a perjurer to boot.

Aren't you confusing him with Biden? I hadn't heard about Thomas being a perjurer.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Anyone remember when Bush I said he would nominate another black man to replace Thurgood Marshall? We got Clarence Thomas, maybe the most partisan judge to ever sit on the bench. And a perjurer to boot.

Aren't you confusing him with Biden? I hadn't heard about Thomas being a perjurer.

The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas

It’s time to re-examine the evidence that he not only committed serial sexual harassment, but lied about it.

nymag.com

And given the evidence that’s come out in the years since, it’s also time to raise the possibility of impeachment. Not because he watched porn on his own time, of course. Not because he talked about it with a female colleague — although our understanding of the real workplace harm that kind of sexual harassment does to women has evolved dramatically in the years since, thanks in no small part to those very hearings. Nor is it even because he routinely violated the norms of good workplace behavior, in a way that seemed especially at odds with the elevated office he was seeking. It’s because of the lies he told, repeatedly and under oath, saying he had never talked to Hill about porn or to other women who worked with him about risqué subject matter.

Lying is, for lawyers, a cardinal sin. State disciplinary committees regularly institute proceedings against lawyers for knowingly lying in court, with punishments that can include disbarment. Since 1989, three federal judges have been impeached and forced from office for charges that include lying. The idea of someone so flagrantly telling untruths to ascend to the highest legal position in the U.S. remains shocking, in addition to its being illegal. (Thomas, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on a detailed list of queries.)

Thomas’s lies not only undermined Hill but also isolated her. It was her word versus his — when it could have been her word, plus several other women’s, which would have made for a different media narrative and a different calculation for senators. As the present moment has taught us, women who come forward alongside other women are more likely to be believed (unfair as that might be). There were four women who wanted to testify, or would have if subpoenaed, to corroborate aspects of Hill’s story. My new reporting shows that there is at least one more who didn’t come forward. Their “Me Too” voices were silenced.

 

[Toni]

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.

Anyone remember when Bush I said he would nominate another black man to replace Thurgood Marshall? We got Clarence Thomas, maybe the most partisan judge to ever sit on the bench. And a perjurer to boot.

Aren't you confusing him with Biden? I hadn't heard about Thomas being a perjurer.

The Case for Impeaching Clarence Thomas

It’s time to re-examine the evidence that he not only committed serial sexual harassment, but lied about it.

nymag.com

And given the evidence that’s come out in the years since, it’s also time to raise the possibility of impeachment. Not because he watched porn on his own time, of course. Not because he talked about it with a female colleague — although our understanding of the real workplace harm that kind of sexual harassment does to women has evolved dramatically in the years since, thanks in no small part to those very hearings. Nor is it even because he routinely violated the norms of good workplace behavior, in a way that seemed especially at odds with the elevated office he was seeking. It’s because of the lies he told, repeatedly and under oath, saying he had never talked to Hill about porn or to other women who worked with him about risqué subject matter.

Lying is, for lawyers, a cardinal sin. State disciplinary committees regularly institute proceedings against lawyers for knowingly lying in court, with punishments that can include disbarment. Since 1989, three federal judges have been impeached and forced from office for charges that include lying. The idea of someone so flagrantly telling untruths to ascend to the highest legal position in the U.S. remains shocking, in addition to its being illegal. (Thomas, through a spokesperson, declined to comment on a detailed list of queries.)

Thomas’s lies not only undermined Hill but also isolated her. It was her word versus his — when it could have been her word, plus several other women’s, which would have made for a different media narrative and a different calculation for senators. As the present moment has taught us, women who come forward alongside other women are more likely to be believed (unfair as that might be). There were four women who wanted to testify, or would have if subpoenaed, to corroborate aspects of Hill’s story. My new reporting shows that there is at least one more who didn’t come forward. Their “Me Too” voices were silenced.

Actually, a more likely source of trouble for Thomas is his wife, Ginni, who has been instrumental in helping the insurrectionists.

 

[Hermit]

Thank you for admitting that you are a racist sexist who considers that sex and race are your first or most important qualifications.

Were I on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I'd have three questions to ask the nominee
* Please explain in your own words the 9th Amendment
* Please explain in your own words the 10th Amendment
* Do you favor a narrow or expansive interpretation of the interstate commerce clause

Were you on the Senate Judiciary Committee, you'd have two questions to ask the nominee
* What is your race
* What is your gender

That's why you think everyone else is racist and sexist.

That's a massive misreading of what Toni wrote. Telling her what she would do does not help your argument one jot either.

 

[Patooka]

Thank you for admitting that you are a racist sexist who considers that sex and race are your first or most important qualifications.

Were I on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I'd have three questions to ask the nominee
* Please explain in your own words the 9th Amendment
* Please explain in your own words the 10th Amendment
* Do you favor a narrow or expansive interpretation of the interstate commerce clause

Were you on the Senate Judiciary Committee, you'd have two questions to ask the nominee
* What is your race
* What is your gender

That's why you think everyone else is racist and sexist.

It's pretty telling that you believe the only people who can't be sexist and racist are people who believe that you can't be qualified to be on the supreme court and be a black woman at the same time. Why is that a bridge too far for you/

 

[Toni]

Yes. You are comfortable that Biden, whose advisors are operating by checkboxes, will appoint a well qualified candidate. That is the racist position of thinking demographics is qualifications.

You are confident that Biden is unable to think for himself and that his advisors operate by checkboxes. That says a lot more about you than it does about Biden, his advisors and any of the well qualified black female jurists.

That Biden's advisors are operating by checkboxes says nothing about black female jurists.

What, exactly do you have against appointing a black woman to the Supreme Court? I don't remember you being all bent out of shape about any of the nominees that got rammed through under the former administration.

I have nothing against a black woman being appointed. What do you have against judging whether or not she has qualifications other than "black" and "woman"? Why is that all you are judging?

Obviously you aren't reading carefully. I've stated all along that I was certain that Biden would pick a well qualified jurist who was also black and female.

Only a racist would consider that sex and race was the first or most important qualification. Only a racist sexist would say that someone was hired or admitted or nominated because of their gender or their racist.

Thank you for admitting that you are a racist sexist who considers that sex and race are your first or most important qualifications.

Were I on the Senate Judiciary Committee, I'd have three questions to ask the nominee
* Please explain in your own words the 9th Amendment
* Please explain in your own words the 10th Amendment
* Do you favor a narrow or expansive interpretation of the interstate commerce clause

Were you on the Senate Judiciary Committee, you'd have two questions to ask the nominee
* What is your race
* What is your gender

That's why you think everyone else is racist and sexist.

Your imagination has utterly failed you.

 

[Derec]

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?

So are you saying that you'd be fine if Trump had appointed say Ivanka or Don Jr. or what is your feigned confusion between de facto and de jure technical qualifications in aid of?

 

[Patooka]

So are you saying that you'd be fine if Trump had appointed say Ivanka or Don Jr. or what is your feigned confusion between de facto and de jure technical qualifications in aid of?

That's a brilliant idea. I 100% support this.

 

[Derec]

I'm pleased that Biden has promised to appoint a Black female.

Why? It makes her obviously an "affirmative action" hire, and no matter whom he choses there will be the fact that she was chosen based on her skin color and genitals.
And the only reason Biden made such a racist and sexist pledge is because he was behind in the primaries and needed a win in SC. So he decided to sell his soul to Jim Clyburn. Same reason he picked the blackish female Kamala Harris for Veep, even though she viciously and unfairly attacked him during the early primaries over busing.

The courts should reflect the diversity of the country.

SCOTUS is not meant to be a representative body. And even if you think it should be, now SCOTUS will be 22.2% black. Black population of the US is less than 13%. So this court will overrepresent blacks.

For far too long, SCOTUS was a pack of privileged white males.

And now there will be exactly zero white men on SCOTUS who have been appointed by Democrats.
The last white man Dems have put on the court was Breyer himself almost 30 years ago!

I may be in the minority, but I look forward to seeing a sharp, experienced Black women on SCOTUS.

I think race and gender should not matter. Biden should have selected a sharp, experienced, and moderate jurist no matter the skin color, creed or genitals.
I am also concerned that his nominee may be a radical. Biden ran as a moderate, but in office, he has deferred to the loony AOC|Bernie wing of the Party.

 

[Derec]

But get ready for people being upset that white males aren't being considered and therefore reverse racism.

It is obviously racist and sexist (no need for "reverse" qualifier!) to only consider black women.
It is also ironic that now that SCOTUS has agreed to hear (and probably will declare unconstitutional) racial preferences, Biden is about to nominate a justice based on a crude quota. He is not even pulling a Harvard and hiding racial preferences behind bogus personality scores.

 

[Derec]

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 would be happy with a truly liberal justice, i.e. one concerned with individual liberties. Not what is inaccurately called "liberal" in contemporary American parlance. Biden should not appoint somebody left wing. For one, it would not be good for the country. Also, Biden ran as a moderate, and was elected based on that. We did not elect him to be a Diet Bernie. Half the calories trillions of Bernie Classic (of course, AOC is New Bernie).

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.

Neither do I.

 

[Derec]

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

Spoken like a true left-wing racist/sexist.
Do perspectives of white men not matter? Apparently they don't in the Democratic Party, since the last white man put on the SCOTUS by a Democrat was Breyer himself, almost 30 years ago!

 

[Derec]

Biden is a crap orator and is surprisingly naive about reading the political landscape.

He was not naïve. He was very cynical. He was on the ropes ahead of SC and needed a W.

 

[Politesse]

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?

So are you saying that you'd be fine if Trump had appointed say Ivanka or Don Jr. or what is your feigned confusion between de facto and de jure technical qualifications in aid of?

I would most certainly consider those terrible choices, as indeed I did Brett Kavanaugh. But technical qualifications aren't the reason why. I definitely think it best practice to seek out meritorious and well-qualified candidates, but the law is purposefully silent on who ought to be or is allowed to fill the role of a Supreme Court Justice.

 

[Derec]

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.

I do not think either had a wing and a prayer, but I think Bernie had a leg up simply because of his personality.

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.

I disagree. I do not think her being female is a "bridge too far". I think it's her being very left-wing, her personality and her lies about her

About her being left-wing, she adopted the standard current woke version of left, whereas Bernie was more traditional leftist. Her performative wokeness is well attested in her tweet calling Michael Brown's justified killing a "murder". As a lawyer, she knew better and she still tweeted it.
As to her personality, she is quite grating in a school-marmy way. She would have made a great mid-century Cathiolic school headmistress.
Her attacks on Bloomberg were quite brutal and a textbook example of politics of personal destruction. For the record, I think Bloomberg would have made a much better president than Biden - he would not have caved to the AOC|Bernie wing like Biden did.

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.

There have not been that many serious contenders to be honest and all three of them, Hillary, Warren and Harris, had serious problems as candidates. So I do not think you can extrapolate from people not liking these three.

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.

She should run for a statewide office first. There hasn't been a Representative elected president since Garfield, and that was 140 years ago!

She could run rings around all of them.

You mean like Indians when they attacked the wagon trains? SCNR.

Harris was up there as well but I think that she would never have overcome the double whammy of skin color plus gender.

Oh please! It has nothing to do with her gender. She ran a crap campaign. She also chose to contest the left lane which was already crowded with heavyweights Bernie and Warren, not to mention that she was unpopular on the far left because she was a prosecutor who - unlike her successor Chesa Boudin - actually wanted to put criminals in prison.

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.

I liked Pete during the campaign. He disappointed as a Transportation Secretary though. What actions as mayor in particular?

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.
[/QUOTE]

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.

Hardly. The map would have resembled 1988.

 

[Derec]

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

Can we stop giving this black supremacist attention?
And he is quite wrong on where racism comes from. It's racist to only consider one race for nomination. It is not racist to criticize it.

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

So Gorsuch, Kav and Notorious ACB are a delicious rack of ribs while the Black-Female-TBD is salad? Is that the analogy the racist (who thinks black jurors should automatically jury nullify all trials with a white victim) is going for?

 

[Derec]

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,

Let's not pretend that Democrats do not have an equivalent set of qualifications. Biden is not going to appoint somebody opposed to abortion, gay marriage or even racial preferences in colleges and in hiring.

The qualifications of Kavanaugh and Barret were negligible in terms of experience but high in terms of social and political agenda.

Both were appeals court judges before being appointed. How is their resume thinner than that of most other justices?

 

[Derec]

Oh, sure some think that he should nominate Kamala Harris (???) because they can't think of any other qualified black woman.

Would not be a horrible idea for Biden honestly. Both Harris and Biden do not have good approval ratings right now. Kamala doesn't have a good chance to be elected president in 2024 even if Biden does not run again I think. So going for SCOTUS might seem like a good idea for her. And for Biden it would allow him to reset his presidency by choosing a new Veep. Not the worst thing he could do at this point.

 

[Derec]

Anyone remember when Bush I said he would nominate another black man to replace Thurgood Marshall? We got Clarence Thomas, maybe the most partisan judge to ever sit on the bench. And a perjurer to boot.

I do not think he can hold a candle to somebody like Sotomayor.
Most worthless excuse for a justice ever and exhibit A as to why Affirmative Action is a bad idea.

Fact check: Sotomayor makes false claim about Covid-19's impact on children

 

[Derec]

I would most certainly consider those terrible choices, as indeed I did Brett Kavanaugh. But technical qualifications aren't the reason why.

So you would be fine with a SCOTUS nominee with no technical qualifications, as long as they had the correct race, gender and politics. And probably in that order too.

I definitely think it best practice to seek out meritorious and well-qualified candidates, but the law is purposefully silent on who ought to be or is allowed to fill the role of a Supreme Court Justice.

It still doesn't mean that we should not criticize a president if he decides to nominate black female version of Chauncey Garnder for example.