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

[Bomb#20]

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".
...
Written by the White House when they were nominating her.

Well, you know what Senator Hruska said of Judge Carswell,

"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos."*​

In the modern world, when justices tend to write rulings that are pretty blatant about being based on what they think is good policy rather than based on the law, representation matters more than it did in Hruska's day. If some segment of the electorate prefer to be ruled over by one of their own rather than by whoever is best at the job, mediocrity is no longer a disqualification.

(* There's a cool game called Hruska based on this principle. Three people pick numbers. The one with the number in the middle gets a point. Repeat many rounds. Whoever scores the middle number of points is the winner. )

 

[TomC]

(* There's a cool game called Hruska based on this principle. Three people pick numbers. The one with the number in the middle gets a point. Repeat many rounds. Whoever scores the middle number of points is the winner. )

Heh.
I wish I were smart enough to make that a game in the IIDB lounge.
That'd be fun.
Tom

 

[lpetrich]

In such a game, is there a minimum and a maximum number?

 

[Bomb#20]

In such a game, is there a minimum and a maximum number?

I guess that depends on how mathematically sophisticated the participants are. If two players calculate that they need to lose a round in order to bring their point totals into the middle, so they both use Ackerman's function to specify their picks, is the third player up for trying to figure out which of them had the highest number?

 

[TomC]

In such a game, is there a minimum and a maximum number?

I guess that depends on how mathematically sophisticated the participants are. If two players calculate that they need to lose a round in order to bring their point totals into the middle, so they both use Ackerman's function to specify their picks, is the third player up for trying to figure out which of them had the highest number?

I'm so mathematically unsophisticated I wasn't sure if the question referred to the possible choices, players, or rounds.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

In such a game, is there a minimum and a maximum number?

I guess that depends on how mathematically sophisticated the participants are. If two players calculate that they need to lose a round in order to bring their point totals into the middle, so they both use Ackerman's function to specify their picks, is the third player up for trying to figure out which of them had the highest number?

I'm so mathematically unsophisticated I wasn't sure if the question referred to the possible choices, players, or rounds.
Tom

I took LP to mean possible choices. The number of players was fixed at three in the rules I read. (I suppose that could be increased, but then you'd probably have to do something more complicated to handle ties.) The number of rounds is necessarily at least three so the players can score 0-to-1-to-2, and at most something moderate since people won't want to play the same game for ages without identifying a winner. Presumably the players would agree in advance on the number of rounds or on a time for the game to end.

 

[TomC]

Well then, you probably need to demsplain to him the correct language for minorities to use to describe how the Democrats treat them.

"Demsplain"?
I'm a fairly conservative white male.
Even I know that the KKK supports TeaPartiers like Trump and McConnell. Solidly support them.

Trump is the current hero of the KKK. Whether you and TSwizzle realize it or not.
Tom

 

[blastula]

So, that's a no then.

And I explained why not.

You gave excuses, sure.

 

[lpetrich]

Neither Cori Bush nor AOC wants someone like Candace Owens:

Cori Bush on Twitter: "I would love to see a Black woman who will insist on racial, environmental, social, disability, and economic justice named to the Supreme Court.

Identity is important but it is not enough." / Twitter

Influencers with Andy Serwer: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Now, I appreciate that question because identity is just the starting step when we are discussing a Supreme Court justice. There is no shortage of incredible, qualified, leading Black female candidates to serve on the Supreme Court. But the question is, what is going to be that nominee's worldview and what I hope is that what we see is a nominee that is truly rooted in not just public service, but with a protection towards the very rights that, frankly, have been eroded over the last, not just 2, 3, 5 years, but the last 10 years. What their stance on something like Citizens United would be. What their stance would be on expanding the right to vote. I mean, these are central questions about our democracy, both in the financial capture of our democracy, but also the racial injustice capture of an erosion of our democracy as well.

 

[lpetrich]

What the uproar over Biden nominating a Black woman for the Supreme Court says about America

When a liberal Supreme Court justice announced his intention to retire, and the President pledged to nominate an African American to the court, condemnation from conservative senators was swift and predictable. The President is putting politics and race ahead of what is best for the country, they said, and should not expect their support in the confirmation process.

The year was 1967, the President was Johnson, the nominee Thurgood Marshall.

A legendary civil rights attorney, Marshall’s bona fides were beyond question. But conservatives of both parties, including segregationists Strom Thurmond and James Eastland, did their best to block the confirmation. Eastland even used his questioning to ask Marshall if he was “prejudiced against white people in the South.”

When TM retired in 1991, George Bush I appointed Clarence Thomas as his successor.

Reagan Pledges He Would Name a Woman to the Supreme Court - The Washington Post

Ronald Reagan, striving to refute charges that he is insensitive to women's rights, said today he would name a woman to "one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration."

"It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists," Reagan said in a prepared statement to a news conference here. "I will also seek out women to appoint to other federal courts in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench."

Trump vows to nominate a woman for US supreme court vacancy within a week | Donald Trump | The Guardian

Donald Trump has promised to put forward a female nominee in the coming week to fill the supreme court vacancy created by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, pushing the Republican-controlled Senate to consider the pick without delay.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Personally, I'd like to see how someone behaves as a judge before putting them in lifetime positions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

There never was an investigation. And what did come out would make me willing to convict him of sexual assault.

 

[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.

There never was an investigation. And what did come out would make me willing to convict him of sexual assault.

Ya gotta be kidding.

 

[Derec]

There never was an investigation. And what did come out would make me willing to convict him of sexual assault.

There was a long Senate hearing that focused on these unsubstantiated and dubious allegations. And there was no evidence presented that would hold up in court. You just hate Kav because he was nominated by Trump, and you hate, loathe and despise Trump. I get it - I don't like Trump myself, but that doesn't change the fact that the hearings were a farce.

As to Kav himself, I find myself siding with "liberal" and sometimes with conservative justices depending on the issue. For example, I have great hopes that SCOTUS will finally end so-called "affirmative action". It should have been declared unconstitutional in 1978 with Bakke, but the wheels of justice turn proverbially slowly.

 

[Swammerdami]

There never was an investigation. And what did come out would make me willing to convict him of sexual assault.

There was a long Senate hearing that focused on these unsubstantiated and dubious allegations. And there was no evidence presented that would hold up in court.

What mind-boggling ignorance. There were many witnesses who came forward with collaborations and similar allegations of their own. Not only were they NOT called to testify before the Senate, most of them were NOT even interviewed by the FBI.

Among those NOT interviewed by the FBI were at least one other woman who had witnessed or been victim of a Kavanaugh assault; several who could testify that Kavanaugh had perjured himself before the Committee; and Ford and Kavanaugh themselves! (If FBI interviews of Kavanaugh and his chief accuser seem irrelevant, ask yourself whether the FBI or a Senate committee operated by Moscow Mitch and his coven is more likely to get at truth.)

These facts are not hard-to-find. Where in tarnation do you get your "facts", Mr. Derec? On occasion you seem almost well informed and intelligent. But ignorant prattle like your "unsubstantiated and dubious" here damages your credibility.

 

[Derec]

What mind-boggling ignorance. There were many witnesses who came forward with collaborations and similar allegations of their own.

Ignorance is on your part. Blasey-Ford's friend Leland Keyser did not collaborate[sic] anything. Neither did she corroborate anything.

Those facts together I don’t recollect, and it just didn’t make any sense.
It would be impossible for me to be the only girl at a get-together with three guys, have her leave and then not figure out how she’s getting home. I just really didn’t have confidence in the story.

Christine Blasey Ford’s friend now says she’s skeptical of Kavanaugh accusation

The second accuser who came forward is Debra Ramirez, who only alleged some college party boorishness and not an (attempted) assault. Even so, she wasn't even sure that it was Kavanaugh who did it.

On the night of the alleged incident, Ramirez admits to being drunk and, since then, having gaps in her memory. According to The New Yorker, “she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.”
The magazine reported that it took six days of “carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney” for Ramirez to go on record accusing Kavanaugh.” The Times reported that Ramirez had contacted several of her former classmates to see if they remembered the incident because she could not be certain that Kavanaugh had been the perpetrator. CNN has not been able to find any firsthand eyewitnesses to corroborate her story.

Who is Deborah Ramirez, the second Kavanaugh accuser?

The Avenatti accuser was even less credible.
New questions raised about Avenatti claims regarding Kavanaugh

Not only were they NOT called to testify before the Senate, most of them were NOT even interviewed by the FBI.

I am not so much interested in procedural inside baseball issues but rather about the allegations themselves. They were weak and Dems made a strategic error to base the confirmation hearings around them.

Among those NOT interviewed by the FBI were at least one other woman who had witnessed or been victim of a Kavanaugh assault;

You mean like the one who wasn't even sure it was Kav? And it wasn't even an assault, more like college party hijinks.

several who could testify that Kavanaugh had perjured himself before the Committee; and Ford and Kavanaugh themselves! (If FBI interviews of Kavanaugh and his chief accuser seem irrelevant, ask yourself whether the FBI or a Senate committee operated by Moscow Mitch and his coven is more likely to get at truth.)

Truth about what? What may or may not have happened at high school and college parties in the 80s?
And why do you call him Moscow Mitch? He is not the one trying to restrict US domestic oil production and kill pipelines directly benefiting Moscow's oil exports.

These facts are not hard-to-find. Where in tarnation do you get your "facts", Mr. Derec?

Mostly based on my recollection of the long thread we had on this when it was happening.
But why are you still so hung up on Kav? He got confirmed, he is on the Court, it's done.
I do hope he does some good and helps declare blatantly unconstitutional racial preferences as such.

On occasion you seem almost well informed and intelligent.

Unlike you, who never seem that way.

But ignorant prattle like your "unsubstantiated and dubious" here damages your credibility.

I may have undersold just how weak the allegations were. I'll try to do better.

 

[laughing dog]

There never was an investigation. And what did come out would make me willing to convict him of sexual assault.

There was a long Senate hearing that focused on these unsubstantiated and dubious allegations. And there was no evidence presented that would hold up in court.

What mind-boggling ignorance. There were many witnesses who came forward with collaborations and similar allegations of their own. Not only were they NOT called to testify before the Senate, most of them were NOT even interviewed by the FBI.

Among those NOT interviewed by the FBI were at least one other woman who had witnessed or been victim of a Kavanaugh assault; several who could testify that Kavanaugh had perjured himself before the Committee; and Ford and Kavanaugh themselves! (If FBI interviews of Kavanaugh and his chief accuser seem irrelevant, ask yourself whether the FBI or a Senate committee operated by Moscow Mitch and his coven is more likely to get at truth.)

These facts are not hard-to-find. Where in tarnation do you get your "facts", Mr. Derec? On occasion you seem almost well informed and intelligent. But ignorant prattle like your "unsubstantiated and dubious" here damages your credibility.

If your underlying basis is that women are basically lying sluts when it comes to sexual assault allegations, and that only videos from at least 3 different angles are required for verification, then Derec's position is logical and consistent.

 

[Copernicus]

It's also true that Derec is basing his opinion on his reading of the public record rather than an actual FBI investigation in which lying, like perjury in court, is subject to criminal penalties. There never was anything but a token FBI investigation of the allegations, and that was because the FBI was essentially handcuffed by those in charge of running it at the time. Wray could do as he pleased and ended up just like his predecessor. Or he could play it safe. He's still in his job. Comey is not.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There never was an investigation. And what did come out would make me willing to convict him of sexual assault.

There was a long Senate hearing that focused on these unsubstantiated and dubious allegations. And there was no evidence presented that would hold up in court. You just hate Kav because he was nominated by Trump, and you hate, loathe and despise Trump. I get it - I don't like Trump myself, but that doesn't change the fact that the hearings were a farce.

As to Kav himself, I find myself siding with "liberal" and sometimes with conservative justices depending on the issue. For example, I have great hopes that SCOTUS will finally end so-called "affirmative action". It should have been declared unconstitutional in 1978 with Bakke, but the wheels of justice turn proverbially slowly.

A senate hearing does basically no investigating. It's just a stage show. The important stuff was the FBI investigation--that wasn't permitted to happen.

 

[Trausti]

I mean,