Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer To Retire

[LeviF]

3 minutes ago, 716er said:

To make an attempt to represent the diversity of our country with a qualified minority candidate is something to strive for. If it pisses off racists or makes them question why this group over that group so be it.

 

Don't really understand the issue with anything Biden promised here.

 

As mentioned previously, both Trump and Reagan made promises to represent the diversity of our country by nominating a female. I had no issue with those "promises" either.

 

And again the question needs to be asked: our laws and Constitution are set down in black and white, forever inscribed into our nation's founding documents as well as acts of Congress. Why, then, does "diversity" enter into the equation? Why does any group need "representation" in the reading and interpreting of laws?

[716er]

8 minutes ago, LeviF said:

 

And again the question needs to be asked: our laws and Constitution are set down in black and white, forever inscribed into our nation's founding documents as well as acts of Congress. Why, then, does "diversity" enter into the equation? Why does any group need "representation" in the reading and interpreting of laws?

 

It's not needed but it is 2022.

 

What's the problem with a qualified black woman on the SC? 

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, 716er said:

 

It's not needed but it is 2022.

 

What's the problem with a qualified black woman on the SC? 

Ugh!  Has ANYONE said there's a problem?  Don't be an arse! 

[716er]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

Ugh!  Has ANYONE said there's a problem?  Don't be an arse! 

 

So far up to 6 pages of right-wingers yammering all about the problems with it.

[Demongyz]

2 minutes ago, 716er said:

 

So far up to 6 pages of right-wingers yammering all about the problems with it.

I would love to have a qualified black female SC Justice, but in order to get that, they would probably have to be appointed by a Republican.

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, 716er said:

 

So far up to 6 pages of right-wingers yammering all about the problems with it.

Yet another liberal that doesn't understand even the simplest of topics. The argument is NOT about whether there could be a qualified black woman. The argument is about whether skin color should EVER be front and center in the discussion. Why is that complicated? It's EXACTLY what MLK was trying to avoid. Sheeesh!

[716er]

4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Yet another liberal that doesn't understand even the simplest of topics. The argument is NOT about whether there could be a qualified black woman. The argument is about whether skin color should EVER be front and center in the discussion. Why is that complicated? It's EXACTLY what MLK was trying to avoid. Sheeesh!

 

During Joe's campaign he promised to elect a black woman to the Supreme Court.

 

Has he mentioned it since?

 

The people making it front and center in the discussion today are people like those in this thread.

[Chef Jim]

35 minutes ago, 716er said:

To make an attempt to represent the diversity of our country with a qualified minority candidate is something to strive for. If it pisses off racists or makes them question why this group over that group so be it.

 

Don't really understand the issue with anything Biden promised here.

 

As mentioned previously, both Trump and Reagan made promises to represent the diversity of our country by nominating a female. I had no issue with those "promises" either.

Please explain must the court represent the diversity of the nation in order to make fair rulings?  

[716er]

10 minutes ago, Demongyz said:

I would love to have a qualified black female SC Justice, but in order to get that, they would probably have to be appointed by a Republican.

 

The previous Republican president appointed 9 and ended up confirming 7 judges deemed "not qualified" by the American Bar Association so I'm not sure about the logic.

[Chef Jim]

8 hours ago, 716er said:

 

So far up to 6 pages of right-wingers yammering all about the problems with it.

You don’t even understand, or refuse to understand our point. 

Edited January 29, 2022 by Chef Jim

[Demongyz]

9 minutes ago, 716er said:

 

The previous Republican president appointed 9 and ended up confirming 7 judges deemed "not qualified" by the American Bar Association so I'm not sure about the logic.

Yeah, he just did as he was told, it's not like he had any clue what was going on.  Also, he did appoint like 8 billion judges.  I was just thinking that anyone appointed by the left wing will not be able to read the 2nd amendment clearly thus none will be qualified.

[B-Man]

3 hours ago, 716er said:

 

So far up to 6 pages of right-wingers yammering all about the problems with it.

 

 

Really. A direct lie ?

 

You are better than that.

 

 

 

"Like Judge Jackson, Justice [Leondra] Kruger has a dazzling résumé.... The main differences are that she’s younger and...likely to be more moderate on SCOTUS than Judge Jackson, at least based on her record on the California Supreme Court, where she has sided with Republican appointees more often than her fellow Democratic appointees. Some observers also see Justice Kruger as 'intellectually stronger' or boasting more 'intellectual firepower' than Judge Jackson.

 

The youth and moderation cut both ways. Yes, the Biden Administration favors young nominees. But on the other hand, Justice Kruger is young enough that she’ll be a viable SCOTUS pick for another five to ten years, so she could be 'saved' for a future vacancy (just as Justice Barrett was passed over for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s seat so she could be “saved” for Justice Ginsburg’s). The moderation makes Justice Kruger easier to confirm, which is useful in a closely divided Senate. But on the other hand, it has made some on the left somewhat cautious about or even opposed to her."

 

Writes David Lat at "Handicapping President Biden's Supreme Court Shortlist/Here are my odds on the leading contenders—and some interesting historical analysis" (Original Jurisdiction). Lat gives Jackson a 40% chance of getting the nomination and Kruger a 30% chance.

 

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/handicapping-president-bidens-supreme?fbclid=IwAR2drRqTgd5JeX-p45ARZxTi6vpBSFTffABPOXs8VTChCWjlIpnrLNo45eQ

 

 

 

 

 

I prefer moderate Justices, so I hope it's Kruger. And I would add 2 things: 

 

1. It would be most valuable to liberals to have a Justice who will influence swing voters from the conservative side. I'm remembering the argument Professor Tribe made in 2010, when Obama got his first nomination and it seemed as though he was going to pick Sonia Sotomayor: It would be better to pick Elena Kagan, because she'd have more "of a purchase on Tony Kennedy's mind." Kennedy was the swing voter of the time, a time when the liberals only needed to swing one vote to gain a majority. These days, a liberal justice will need to swing 2 votes. Shouldn't Biden bet on Kruger?

 

2. Having committed to nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court, who can believe that the next nomination (if there is one) will also go to a black woman?

 

Once you start doing representation, doesn't filling one slot eliminate putting the same "kind" of person in the next slot — or any slot any time soon? That might be a reason not to adopt this idea of choosing people by race and gender in the first place, but Biden made that choice back in the primaries when he needed to flaunt a pledge to win the black vote. Going forward, it's hard to picture nominating 2 black women in a row. It was easier to choose Kagan after Sotomayor than it will be to pick Kruger after Jackson. It's not something I expect Democrats to say out loud, but I'm sure Biden's people know that. If Kruger is better, pick her now.

 

 

 

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/01/like-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson.html#more

 

 

Edited January 28, 2022 by B-Man

[Orlando Buffalo]

16 hours ago, 716er said:

 

It's not needed but it is 2022.

 

What's the problem with a qualified black woman on the SC? 

So what is wrong with a Asian being on the court- we have Clarence Thomas, and several women, why not pick an Asian if we want diversity? You don't care about diversity if you want more of the same. 

[SoCal Deek]

Page after page of this rabbit hole. Look people, how this should be handled is the President should state he’s looking for a Justice that has a certain judicial philosophy…and on the assumption that more than one candidate arises he’d prefer it if they were a female of color with all else considered….done!

[Chef Jim]

45 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

So what is wrong with a Asian being on the court- we have Clarence Thomas, and several women, why not pick an Asian if we want diversity? You don't care about diversity if you want more of the same. 

How about a gay male?  The list of candidates that would add to the diversity of the court is long. He and the Biden administration don’t care about diversity.  

[Backintheday544]

4 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

How about a gay male?  The list of candidates that would add to the diversity of the court is long. He and the Biden administration don’t care about diversity.  

You held the same stance in the Amy Comey Barrett debacle where Trump said he would pick a woman. And I agree that we shouldn’t pick a Justice based on factors other than their qualifications.

 

The only reason I give pause here is when Biden ran for President one of his promises was he would select a black woman for the Supreme Court if he had the chance. The American voters knew this and elected him with the greatest number of votes possible.

 

So a vast majority of US people knew this would happen and voted in record numbers for it. If people objected to it, more people would have voted against Biden.

[SoCal Deek]

11 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

You held the same stance in the Amy Comey Barrett debacle where Trump said he would pick a woman. And I agree that we shouldn’t pick a Justice based on factors other than their qualifications.

 

The only reason I give pause here is when Biden ran for President one of his promises was he would select a black woman for the Supreme Court if he had the chance. The American voters knew this and elected him with the greatest number of votes possible.

 

So a vast majority of US people knew this would happen and voted in record numbers for it. If people objected to it, more people would have voted against Biden.

That’s not the debate we’re having. The debate is not whether voters knew it but whether candidates should be saying anything like that at all. 

[Backintheday544]

3 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

That’s not the debate we’re having. The debate is not whether voters knew it but whether candidates should be saying anything like that at all. 

That’s a silly debate. He said it like over a year ago. People made the decision whether they liked that or not. And now he’s following through.

 

Right or wrong, the debate ended when a record number of US people voted for Biden and as such voted for his  very publicly announced policy decision on how he would pick a Supreme Court Justice.

[Precision]

For all the "racists" out there below is a pie chart of the demographics of the US from 2012 (I know a little old but oddly enough no one likes to publish "racist" statistics anymore). 

 

Currently 1 of the 9 supreme court judges is African American (11%).  So African American representation on the court very closely matches the percentage of African Americans in the US (roughly 13%).  If the administration wanted ethnic fairness on the court, they should be appointing....

• A judge from the Asian/Pacific/Native American ethnic group (currently no representation).   
• Another judge from the Hispanic ethnic group (far more under-represented than African Americans).  

 

 

[Orlando Buffalo]

11 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said:

That’s a silly debate. He said it like over a year ago. People made the decision whether they liked that or not. And now he’s following through.

 

Right or wrong, the debate ended when a record number of US people voted for Biden and as such voted for his  very publicly announced policy decision on how he would pick a Supreme Court Justice.

What a ridiculous response, the debate is whether it is right or wrong. It did not end the day he was elected anymore than anything Trump did ended the day he was elected. You act as if people voting for him gives Carte Blanche.