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

[Jimmy Higgins]

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]

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]

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]

All the way back to Reagan who said he would appoint a woman and he did.

 

[Copernicus]

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]

Biden is delivering on his promise to diversify the courts

Wut?

Janice Rogers Brown - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

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.

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session

roll_call_vote.xml

www.senate.gov

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]

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]

Biden is delivering on his promise to diversify the courts

Wut?

Janice Rogers Brown - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

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.

U.S. Senate: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session

roll_call_vote.xml

www.senate.gov

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]

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]

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.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

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.

I see it. The people whose only concern is the demographic checkboxes are those who are "left", "liberal", or "progressive". Everyone else is laughing at putting demographics as a primary consideration.

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.

That's nice. All the talk is about demographic checkboxes and there is no talk at this time about qualifications. It is almost as if Democrats think demographics is a qualification yet experience isn't. That's rather racist.

 

[Toni]

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.

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.

I see it. The people whose only concern is the demographic checkboxes are those who are "left", "liberal", or "progressive". Everyone else is laughing at putting demographics as a primary consideration.

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.

That's nice. All the talk is about demographic checkboxes and there is no talk at this time about qualifications. It is almost as if Democrats think demographics is a qualification yet experience isn't. That's rather racist.

I'm so sorry you are having difficulty reading. Please look again at the bolded bits.

Do you not believe that there are many or any black women who would be well qualified and would make great additions to the Supreme Court? Why is that a difficult concept for you?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

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?

 

[Hermit]

 

[Politesse]

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?

You're interpreting this as saying that they're going to nominate some random Black woman off the street? Of course not, it will be an experienced judge or legal scholar. And since it is a Democratic appointment, she will have record of consistent fairness and be of unimpeachable moral character.

 

[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.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

 

[Politesse]

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.

Yeah, Republicans are bad at this.