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

[ZiprHead]

Technically Derec is correct. RBG in 1993 by Bill Clinton. Sotomayor in 2009 and Kagen in 2010 by Obama.

 

[Elixir]

Technically Derec is correct. RBG in 1993 by Bill Clinton. Sotomayor in 2009 and Kagen in 2010 by Obama.

Got me! "have nominated", yes.
For that matter, Republicans "have nominated" 20 males in a row.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Technically Derec is correct. RBG in 1993 by Bill Clinton. Sotomayor in 2009 and Kagen in 2010 by Obama.

Got me! "have nominated", yes.
For that matter, Republicans "have nominated" 20 males in a row.

Have seated...

Have nominated George W. Bush had Harriet Miers for about 1 or 2 weeks. Obama had Garland.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

In context, the totality of what is being said here is casting blame on the Dems for the outcome "no white men nominated by Democrats left on the court." But it's only true due to technicalities since Dems did in fact nominate Merrick Garland in 2016 but Republicans had blocked that. Leaving out this kind of makes a blame game on one side of the fence. Let's simply ask: whose fault is it that "there will be no white men nominated by Democrats left on the court?"

It's not completely Democrats fault due to the blockage by Republicans. Right?

Further, that's without further commenting on all the other stuff going on in context about history of the court and the demographics of persons serving. It isn't necessary to go there yet for this post.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

In context, the totality of what is being said here is casting blame on the Dems for the outcome "no white men nominated by Democrats left on the court." But it's only true due to technicalities since Dems did in fact nominate Merrick Garland in 2016 but Republicans had blocked that. Leaving out this kind of makes a blame game on one side of the fence. Let's simply ask: whose fault is it that "there will be no white men nominated by Democrats left on the court?"

It's not completely Democrats fault due to the blockage by Republicans. Right?

Further, that's without further commenting on all the other stuff going on in context about history of the court and the demographics of persons serving. It isn't necessary to go there yet for this post.

Yeah, the idea the Dems haven't nominated a white guy in a long time is rather dull, seeing the last person nominated by a Democrat was a white guy, and a moderate one at that.

The endless false claims have gotten so tiring.

 

[ZiprHead]

White men were nominated 143 times in a row, no matter the party.

 

[TomC]

Dems though have nominated three women in a row to the high court.

Really? I must have been asleep. The last Dem nominee I recall was Merrick Garland, who was denied a hearing because … Republicans cheat.

Exactly!
And the Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, blew off the U.S. Constitution.

Now they're complaining that Biden keeping a campaign promise, fully Constitutional, is unAmerican or something.

Tom

 

[Elixir]

Now they're complaining that Biden keeping a campaign promise, fully Constitutional, is unAmerican or something.

If they found Sleepy Joe strolling across the Potomac in sandals, turning bread into seafood and water to wine, they would complain about his shameless grandstanding.

 

[Bomb#20]

Can we have just one thread about prospective SCOTUS nominations that doesn't get into sexual content?! Is that too much to ask?!

Tell that to Clarence and Brett.

 

[Derec]

And the 2022 "Is it Racist, Sexist, or Illegal?" Award goes to...

It's none of those things^*, except illegal, but there is no real reason consensual adult sex work should be illegal. The only reason it still is illegal is because SCOTUS is not consistently applying the principles used in Griswold, Roe and Lawrence. Which brings us back on topic.

^* Sexist? Racist? Hardly! From what I heard, many Asian massage parlor will do the "finger up the butt" thing for the asking (although I have not done so myself). The medical degree thing? A woman I know who runs her own massage shop told me she used to be a nurse back in China. Not a doctor, but at least a medical professional.

 

[Derec]

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

It is easy enough that high GPA or SCL status is not really impressive.

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

I have not seem much evidence of high intelligence. Certainly no evidence that she is more intelligent than the likes of Kav, who is routinely denigrated on here. But unlike SS, Kav did not have the benefit of "affirmative action".

Here's this about Sotomayor:

Background on Judge Sonia Sotomayor

THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary

obamawhitehouse.archives.gov

Written by the White House when they were nominating her.

 

[Derec]

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

At least you are admitting that much. And if you look at Sonia's self-serving defense of so-called "affirmative action", it's more BSy than most legal discourse.

Sotomayor has served in the Federal Judicial system for nearly 30 years! She wasn't a stealth appointment like Amy Comey Barrett, who was given a spot immediately on the Appealate Court and then ascend to SCOTUS in less than 3 years.

30 years? She has been a federal judge for 17 years when she was elevated to SCOTUS. Not 30.
But yes, ACB had a briefer tenure in federal juduciary. She was full time law school professor though, which is also good qualification.

By the way, what will you say if Biden nominates for example Stacey Abrams' sister, who has no appellate court experience whatsoever?

If Sotomayor was so clueless, it shouldn't be hard to point that out with the long trail of cases she has been involved with.

I did not peruse her case history in any detail, but from what I have read written by her - especially on the topic of justifying discrimination based on race and ethnolinguistic group as long as it benefits her - I do not see a great intellect.

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

And you are cute for thinking she would. Her justification in favor of discrimination are tired "equality of outcomes" nonsense. That way lies Harrison Bergeron!

Yeah, quite easily so. And the second half of her answer would be about how Affirmative Action didn't give her the results of her effort. It only provided her with an opportunity.

Affirmative action in education begets affirmative action in employment. It did not stop when she was admitted to Princeton.
And why should she get extra opportunity because her family speaks Spanish and be admitted over somebody from say Brooklyn just because his family might speak Russian or Mandarin? Why is Spanish so special that it should give her extra opportunities not justified by her high school performance and deny it to others merely based on color of their skin or what country their parents or grandparents hail?

And with that opportunity, she graduated Summa Cum Laude at Princeton.

In history.

She busted her humps on the Federal Courts.

Did she? Based on what? I don't mean length of service, but can you point to some notable things she has actually done.
You know, like her ruling that studying for a promotion test doesn't matter because the plaintiff did not have the correct skin color.

 

[Derec]

So, that's a no then.

And I explained why not.

 

[Derec]

Really? I must have been asleep. The last Dem nominee I recall was Merrick Garland,

I did not include him because he was obviously a sacrificial lamb. Even his age - 64 - suggests Obama did not expect him to be confirmed.
But I guess I should have added "successful" for all you hair-splitters on this thread (and you are legion).

who was denied a hearing because … Republicans cheat.

While I agree it was a scummy thing to do, it wasn't cheating.
Also, the McConnell Gambit had a high chance of backfiring because it relied on Trump winning the presidency and not Hillary, who would have almost certainly nominated somebody younger, more left-wing, and also likely black and female.

 

[Derec]

Hold on! ... Maybe Derec knows something about Merrick Garland that we don't know.

See my reply to Elixir.

Besides, we got the drunken rapist instead, so who's complaining?

There is zero credible evidence that Kav is a "rapist". And most people I know got drunk in high school and college. Hardly stuff that should derail a nomination.

 

[Trausti]

There is zero credible evidence that Kav is a "rapist".

Yeah, you'd think by now there'd be something. What a shit show that was.

 

[Derec]

But it's only true due to technicalities since Dems did in fact nominate Merrick Garland in 2016 but Republicans had blocked that.

Insisting to count this sacrifiical lamb nomination is relying on technicalities.

whose fault is it that "there will be no white men nominated by Democrats left on the court?"

Biden who pledged that he will on no account nominate somebody white or somebody male.

 

[Derec]

And the Republicans, led by Mitch McConnell, blew off the U.S. Constitution.

Did they now? Are you an expert in constitutional law?
The Constitution merely says "advise and consent". It does not say that it must occur in any particular manner. In particular, it does not mandate that hearings and a vote must be held.

Why the Senate Doesn't Have to Act on Merrick Garland's Nomination

Does the Senate have to hold hearings and a vote on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court? The Constitution says that unless the Senate gives advice and consent Garland cannot be appointed, but it does not require the Senate to do anything in response to the nomination.

Now they're complaining that Biden keeping a campaign promise, fully Constitutional, is unAmerican or something.

Making a racist and sexist restriction on people he would consider for nomination may not be unconstitutional, but it is not right either.

 

[Derec]

To shift gears a little, the Republicans have a bit of a "power play" now, as a Democratic Senator is off the ice because he suffered a cerebellar stroke. He's likely to be out for several weeks.

New Mexico Sen. Ben Ray Luján may return to D.C. within six weeks, aide says

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But it's only true due to technicalities since Dems did in fact nominate Merrick Garland in 2016 but Republicans had blocked that.

Insisting to count this sacrifiical lamb nomination is relying on technicalities.

whose fault is it that "there will be no white men nominated by Democrats left on the court?"

Biden who pledged that he will on no account nominate somebody white or somebody male.

Wrong, it is the fault of both parties since Republicans blocked Garland.