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

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

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.

Who is pretending that? I voted for the man in part because I believed that he would not appoint such people to the Supreme Court. And I voted against Trump, because I knew from experience that those were exactly the kind of people he would appoint.

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?

Well, Kavanaugh never clerked for a SCOTUS justice and only ever argued only one case before SCOTUS on behalf of Ken Starr--to disregard attorney-client privilege in relation to Foster's death--and they rejected it. He had a reputation for extreme partisanship and was approved as a US Circuit Judge after a party-line vote. He became embroiled in partisan conflicts and was accused of lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Outside of having no particular reputation as an expert in constitutional law, his only real serious credential seemed to be his reliability as a political partisan and his love of beer and forcing himself on women during his wild college years.

Barrett, like Kavanaugh, met the criterion of being adamantly opposed to abortion, but she did clerk for Scalia for a year. So she had that over Kavanaugh, and nobody accusing her of rape or drunken behavior. She had never argued any case before the Supreme Court. More importantly, she was known for feeling that she should basically never recuse herself from cases where she appeared to have a conflict of interest or appearance of bias. She served as a US Circuit judge, but only for three years. That was it. Nothing really to distinguish herself as an experienced legal scholar, but everyone thought she was smart and knowledgeable . Basically, it was just her policy biases that got her the nomination, and she was rushed through confirmation without much vetting only because a presidential election was coming up quickly. It was one of the most blatant exercises of political shoehorning onto SCOTUS in the history of the US.

So now we come to Biden's choice of a qualified justice, and he has narrowed it down to a campaign promise to his political base during an election campaign--same as Reagan's promise to appoint a woman during his presidential election. He has a large number of qualified candidates to pick from in that narrow demographic, and the ones I have seen put forward in the press all look far more qualified for the position than either Barrett or Kavanaugh. Trump had his litmus test, and so does Biden. The difference is that competence and experience was not high on the list for Trump's decision. I believe that it will be for Biden.
 
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.
Double check your quote brackets, babe. Patooka most certainly did not say what you quoted Patooka saying.
 
Double check your quote brackets, babe. Patooka most certainly did not say what you quoted Patooka saying.
Fixed.
The new forum software does a lot of things better than the old one, but the quote system, and replying to posts in general, is definitely not one of those things.
 
Who is pretending that? I voted for the man in part because I believed that he would not appoint such people to the Supreme Court. And I voted against Trump, because I knew from experience that those were exactly the kind of people he would appoint.
You made it seem like it was inappropriate for Republicans to have such qualifications for their nominees.

Well, Kavanaugh never clerked for a SCOTUS justice and only ever argued only one case before SCOTUS on behalf of Ken Starr--to disregard attorney-client privilege in relation to Foster's death--and they rejected it.
He clerked for Kennedy actually.

He had a reputation for extreme partisanship and was approved as a US Circuit Judge after a party-line vote.
Some Democratic appointments are very partisan as well - Sotomayor for example. And TBD black female judge will most likely be confirmed on a party line vote too.

He became embroiled in partisan conflicts and was accused of lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
During the nomination witchhunt based on unsubstantiated allegations against him.

He has a large number of qualified candidates to pick from in that narrow demographic,
Does he really? I am sure he will have some well-qualified options, but "a large number" is exaggeration I believe. Especially since you seem to think clerking with SCOTUS justices and not liking beer are key qualifications.

and the ones I have seen put forward in the press all look far more qualified for the position than either Barrett or Kavanaugh.
Based on what metrics?
Trump had his litmus test, and so does Biden. The difference is that competence and experience was not high on the list for Trump's decision. I believe that it will be for Biden.
Trump has not nominated any unqualified justices. That is a myth.
 
Clearly the only criterion that ever mattered to Cheato was how likely a SCOTUS candidate would be to support him in a coup attempt.
 
Trump has not nominated any unqualified justices. That is a myth.
If you ask Derec, that is.
The fact:
During his eight years office, President Obama didn’t nominate a single individual who received a “not qualified” ABA rating. In contrast, in just four years President Trump has nominated nine individuals rated “not qualified” to serve as federal judges.

Of those nine nominees, seven were confirmed for lifetime appointments to the bench, including three that Senate Republicans jammed through in his last year: Justin Walker, Sarah Pitlyk and Lawrence VanDyke.

Derec should own up to the fact that he is an ultra conservative. [removed]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
I don't think much of CNN's fact checking here. It was pretty sloppy. Sotomayor's comment was sufficiently vague that it's not possible to tell whether she was claiming that 100,000 children were CURRENTLY hospitalized at the time she was speaking of or over the course of the pandemic. It has been widely reported that hospitalizations for children were up dramatically and that there are more children dying during this omicron surge. It's also pretty ironic since CNN itself reported that hundreds of children were hospitalized with COVID19 every day:


Here's more recent news about COVID 19 cases among children:


There were more than 580,000 new COVID-19 cases among children during the week ending Jan. 6, 2022—a 78% increase compared to the previous week, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.

For the week ending Jan. 2, an average of 672 children were admitted to hospitals every day, which is the highest such number at any point during the pandemic, the CDC reports.

A similar trajectory is occurring at Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital, says Dr. Murray.

“We’ve seen a significant increase in hospitalizations since December. Although we don’t know for sure if Omicron accounts for all cases, it’s highly likely to be the majority of them,” Dr. Murray says. “To put things in perspective, prior to December, the highest number we’ve had of kids hospitalized with COVID in one month was 22. This December, we had 46 kids.”
 
Apparently, our forum member who seems to equate choosing a Black female with Affirmative Action isn't alone. I have several "gifts" left to donate this month, so the following link is on me. :) Who would have ever thought that some asshole from Mississippi would equate a well qualified Black justice with Affirmative Action? Btw, over 60% of Black citizens want AA to end. Most believe, as do I, that AA should now be limited to those who have suffered in the lower socioeconomic class of society. In fact, that's becoming a popular position lately. There was even an editorial written by a Black professor supporting this. He feels that people like him and his children are already privileged and don't need special consideration when applying for a job or admission to a school.

https://wapo.st/34hGRo3
The White House on Saturday issued a forceful rebuke to a U.S. senator from Mississippi who said President Biden’s promise to pick a Black woman for the Supreme Court would ensure that the nominee is a “beneficiary” of affirmative action.

The comments from Republican Sen. Roger Wicker came Friday during a wide-ranging radio interview, in which he bemoaned the “left-wing judge” that Biden is likely to nominate to replace retiring Justice Stephen G. Breyer. Asked by host Paul Gallo on SuperTalk Mississippi Radio about Biden’s vow to nominate a Black woman, Wicker acknowledged the president was fulfilling a campaign promise.
“The irony is that the Supreme Court is at the very same time hearing cases about this sort of affirmative racial discrimination, while adding someone who is the beneficiary of this sort of quota,” Wicker said, in comments first reported by the Mississippi Free Press.

You can read the entire article if you wish. There are plenty of highly qualified Black women to be chosen to serve on SCOTUS. I think it was Derec who said he hoped Biden wouldn't choose a radical. There are already several far right radicals on the court, so it might be a good idea for Biden to choose a far left radical. :) But, I doubt that will happen. People often describe others as radical simply because they hold different positions from themselves. I have confidence that Biden will choose someone who is well qualified to serve, and I will say it again. It's past time to have a Black woman serve on SCOTUS! The courts should reflect the diversity of the country.
 
Your imagination has utterly failed you.

It is funny how racist your beliefs sound when I don't hide behind euphemisms. Mirrors fail you.
Really. I believe that Biden will select a well qualified candidate—and I’m racist. I suppose if you selectively ignore words and phrases that I wrote, and you are determined that I am a racist regardless of what I have ever written in my life, I can see why your own bias would lead you to believe what you want to be true.

You are the person who seems to be losing his mind over the idea that the next nominee to the Supreme Court will be black and female.
 
I'm shocked but delighted to have heard that Lindsey Graham said on Face the Nation that he would vote in support of Childs, if she was Biden's nominee for SCOTUS. He almost sounded like the old, less crazy Lindsey. Wow! He mentioned that there are several highly qualified Black women who could serve on SCOTUS. He even said that the court needed to reflect the racial diversity in the country. Wow again! Where have you been Lindsey? He also said that Trump shouldn't say that he would pardon those who were arrested for the Jan. 6th insurrection attempt. Oh my! Could it be that somebody caused Lindsey to have a come to Jesus meeting, as we say in the South? I don't know how Graham feels about the other potential nominees or if he just likes Childs because she is from SC, but he praised her for being a highly qualified justice.

He also said that it would be good to have a SCOTUS justice who didn't attend an Ivy League school for a change. I agree. Imo, those schools are very overrated. All one has to do is evaluate some of the Republican ivy league school grads to know that.

I also heard on either Meet the Press or Face the Nation that all 50 Democrats plan on supporting Biden's nominee. I believe that because Sinema and Manchin need to do something to show that they do support the Democratic Party, at least some of the time.
 
  • 1787 - 2021: 0 black women nominated for the Supreme Court of the United States
  • 2022: 1 black woman will be nominated for the Supreme Court of the United States
I mean, there is definitely implied racism and sexism in the two stats above, but it isn't pointing in the direction a few people here, and a number of people elsewhere are suggesting.
 
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.
0 people are suggesting that. Why you'd bring it up, implies you have no other angle to argue from. President Biden isn't nominating Miss Cleo. He'll be picking from a list of highly qualified candidates.
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.
That is a peculiar reference to be making, and missing the broader points being presented in "Being There". But yes, there will be racism in the Spring.
 
I do not think he can hold a candle to somebody like Sotomayor.
I agree. A corrupt Uncle Tom is in no way comparable to a competent, humanitarian, intelligent, well qualified justice.
Democrats get really angry when their property leaves the plantation.
They did. And most of them became Republicans in the 1960s and 1970s.
Exactly. Some even became "libertarians" in order to provide "intellectual" cover for their separate but equal mentalities.
 
Who is pretending that? I voted for the man in part because I believed that he would not appoint such people to the Supreme Court. And I voted against Trump, because I knew from experience that those were exactly the kind of people he would appoint.
You made it seem like it was inappropriate for Republicans to have such qualifications for their nominees.

No, you missed the point. It was inappropriate only if that were the main qualifications and not experience or competence. Even those past nominees without judicial experience at least had other talents and experience to bring to the Court. 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.

Well, Kavanaugh never clerked for a SCOTUS justice and only ever argued only one case before SCOTUS on behalf of Ken Starr--to disregard attorney-client privilege in relation to Foster's death--and they rejected it.
He clerked for Kennedy actually.

Quite right. I had forgotten that. He had clerked for Kennedy for a year, which gave him some experience commensurate with Barrett's in that regard. Hardly a lot of experience with the Supreme Court, but better than nothing.

He had a reputation for extreme partisanship and was approved as a US Circuit Judge after a party-line vote.
Some Democratic appointments are very partisan as well - Sotomayor for example. And TBD black female judge will most likely be confirmed on a party line vote too.

Sotomayor was confirmed by nine of the forty Republicans in the Senate at the time. But that was before hyperpartisan shenanigans like denying a sitting president even hearings on his nominee and then packing the Court with three Republican appointments, the last one being rushed through confirmation at almost the speed of light. Don't complain to Democrats about partisan behavior.

He became embroiled in partisan conflicts and was accused of lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
During the nomination witchhunt based on unsubstantiated allegations against him.

It was a little hard to substantiate the allegations with a deliberately shortened FBI investigation and the totally partisan rush to put him on the bench at all costs. Democrats were not even allowed to call witnesses who could have corroborated Ford's allegations under oath. The FBI didn't even interview Kavanaugh or Ford. James Comey Christopher Wray should have done a more thorough job.

He has a large number of qualified candidates to pick from in that narrow demographic,
Does he really? I am sure he will have some well-qualified options, but "a large number" is exaggeration I believe. Especially since you seem to think clerking with SCOTUS justices and not liking beer are key qualifications.

I don't think that a year of clerking for a justice is much of a qualification, and I never said liking beer should disqualify anyone. Liking it so much as to brag about it in a Supreme Court nomination hearing does not strike me as someone with the demeanor and character of a Supreme Court nominee, but I'm not a Republican.
 
I do not think he can hold a candle to somebody like Sotomayor.
I agree. A corrupt Uncle Tom is in no way comparable to a competent, humanitarian, intelligent, well qualified justice.
Democrats get really angry when their property leaves the plantation.
They did. And most of them became Republicans in the 1960s and 1970s.
According to Jimmy, those that the Democrats consider their property left the plantation to become Republicans. I guess that is why Democrats like terms like "Uncle Tom."
 
I do not think he can hold a candle to somebody like Sotomayor.
I agree. A corrupt Uncle Tom is in no way comparable to a competent, humanitarian, intelligent, well qualified justice.
Democrats get really angry when their property leaves the plantation.
They did. And most of them became Republicans in the 1960s and 1970s.
According to Jimmy, those that the Democrats consider their property left the plantation to become Republicans. I guess that is why Democrats like terms like "Uncle Tom."

Why do you have a problem with a black woman being nominated to the Supreme Court?
 
Back
Top Bottom