Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer To Retire

[B-Man]

 

 

Your Sunday Clarice.

 

 

January 30, 2022

The Democrats Make Their Own Racism Explicit

By Clarice Feldman

 

This week the Democratic National Committee gave Justice Steven Breyer the hook, announcing that he was retiring before he’d firmly decided to do so. When he finally responded, he made clear his intention to remain on the bench until Biden’s nominee was confirmed, which at best likely will be sometime this summer if ever. As part of a deal he made with congressman and House majority whip Jim Clyburn when he was on the ropes in the primaries, President Biden promised to nominate to this significant position a black woman, and three candidates’ names -- a weak bench if the suppositions are correct -- have been bandied about in the press. How odd to admit you are selecting a nominee on the basis of race and sex just as the Supreme Court is about to hear serious challenges to affirmative action in college admissions. Moreover, he asserts this will be an “historic” nomination, but it won’t be. (Picking an Asian-American would be.)

 

Neither will it be a popular one that will accrue to the benefit of his party, in my view. His supporters in academia and the press have an inkling of this which is why they are trying to tar and silence critics of this move right from the start. But Clyburn’s demand will make their usual tactics harder to succeed.

 

Much more at the link: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/01/the_democrats_make_their_own_racism_explicit.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/supreme-court-black-women-biden.html?smid=url-share

 

 

The NYT says that "Black women in the legal community are bracing for the possibility that the yet-to-be-named nominee will be judged unfairly as an affirmative action appointment."

 

They quote a black female lawyer (Alisia Adamson Profit, 38): "People are going to say she only got this because she was a Black woman, and that could not be further from the truth. She would not even be considered if she wasn’t qualified, prepared and ready. There will be a segment that will discredit her ability to serve."

 

Ms. Profit's statement doesn't make sense. The nominee will almost certainly be "qualified, prepared and ready" and "ab[le] to serve," but that won't negate the fact that that she "only got this because she was a Black woman."

 

We know from Biden's express commitment that only black women will be considered. If this person who becomes the nominee were not a black woman, then it is plainly the case that she would not have received the nomination. Is the problem that "people are going to say" what is obviously true? Why can't we say it?

Is it a secret? Is it shameful? But Biden is openly saying it

 

 

Biden's advance announcement of intent prevents him and everyone else from doing what is normally done — asserting that the person chosen is actually the very best judicial mind in all the land. 

 

 

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-nyt-says-that-black-women-in-legal.html

[ComradeKayAdams]

On 1/28/2022 at 2:40 PM, 716er said:

Yes - let's expand the court. I think we're on the same page.

 

Hmmm…so recently I have been thinking very deeply about constitutional law, as I am wont to do after a difficult Bills loss.

 

Would a constitutional amendment that specifies Supreme Court term limits and roster size be something on which everyone along the political spectrum can agree? If so, how about, say, 13 justices (one for each U.S. circuit court of appeals) for terms of, say, 26 years (chosen, say, every 2 years)? And if the consensus answer is “yes, Kay, that’s actually a very brilliant idea but that is also not entirely surprising given the progenitor of said idea,” then how would such a bipartisan idea come to fruition given the stridently partisan political climate??

 

Basically, many of my fellow comrades want to pack the courts. Normally I would be against such a thing, but I also don’t want five or six elderly right-wing out-of-touch individuals continuously blocking future domestic economic populist legislation that has amassed the support of ~70+% of the country. So I’m thinking of ways that our dear nation can avoid another Lochner Era crisis because I don’t think it would be good for the stability of our currently fragile democracy. A reversal of Roe v. Wade via yet another Tenth Amendment cop-out may become the dangerous catalyst for such a calamity, and it could easily happen this decade.

 

Or am I being overly dramatic? I’m still quite upset over the Thirteen Seconds game and am having a tough time processing my emotions. Please forgive me, PPP.

[ALF]

The SC will not get expanded by a nuclear option to use 50 votes + VP.  Manchin and Sinema will not do that.

 

Experts say Dems have the procedural tools to add more justices, but maybe not the political support

 

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/organizing-resolution-explained-what-is-court-packing-democrats-nuclear-option-biden-supreme-court-explained/65-a58cf185-7b47-4a84-92fe-b00263e44add

Edited January 30, 2022 by ALF

[B-Man]

 

 

Even the Moderates see it.

 

 

 

[Doc]

2 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/supreme-court-black-women-biden.html?smid=url-share

 

 

The NYT says that "Black women in the legal community are bracing for the possibility that the yet-to-be-named nominee will be judged unfairly as an affirmative action appointment."

 

They quote a black female lawyer (Alisia Adamson Profit, 38): "People are going to say she only got this because she was a Black woman, and that could not be further from the truth. She would not even be considered if she wasn’t qualified, prepared and ready. There will be a segment that will discredit her ability to serve."

 

Ms. Profit's statement doesn't make sense. The nominee will almost certainly be "qualified, prepared and ready" and "ab[le] to serve," but that won't negate the fact that that she "only got this because she was a Black woman."

 

We know from Biden's express commitment that only black women will be considered. If this person who becomes the nominee were not a black woman, then it is plainly the case that she would not have received the nomination. Is the problem that "people are going to say" what is obviously true? Why can't we say it?

Is it a secret? Is it shameful? But Biden is openly saying it

 

 

Biden's advance announcement of intent prevents him and everyone else from doing what is normally done — asserting that the person chosen is actually the very best judicial mind in all the land. 

 

 

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-nyt-says-that-black-women-in-legal.html

 

I would say "largely" instead of "only."

 

56 minutes ago, ALF said:

The SC will not get expanded by a nuclear option to use 50 votes + VP.  Manchin and Sinema will not do that.

 

Experts say Dems have the procedural tools to add more justices, but maybe not the political support

 

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/organizing-resolution-explained-what-is-court-packing-democrats-nuclear-option-biden-supreme-court-explained/65-a58cf185-7b47-4a84-92fe-b00263e44add

 

Yeah, it's not happening anytime soon.  Sorry libs.

[TH3]

24 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Even the Moderates see it.

 

 

 

I mean…when you hit submit…does it ever level with you how stupid you look? And how stupid these links are? Well…I guess here…it passes….Trump and Mitch loaded the bench with the 3 most predisposed nominees and then judges

in my lifetime….and you want to cry foul?

[B-Man]

9 minutes ago, TH3 said:

I mean…when you hit submit…does it ever level with you how stupid you look? And how stupid these links are? Well…I guess here…it passes….Trump and Mitch loaded the bench with the 3 most predisposed nominees and then judges

in my lifetime….and you want to cry foul?

 

 

TH, if you are unable to comprehend what is behind the articles posted that is your problem.

 

and your tendency to assign false equivalencies to those posts are again your own failing,

 

it simply shows the rest of the board that you are not to be taken seriously.

 

 

"Does it ever level with you"...................LOL

 

 

 

Back to the thread's subject.

 

 

 

 

And...........................SUBMIT.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2022 by B-Man

[Buffarukus]

5 hours ago, ComradeKayAdams said:

 

Hmmm…so recently I have been thinking very deeply about constitutional law, as I am wont to do after a difficult Bills loss.

 

Would a constitutional amendment that specifies Supreme Court term limits and roster size be something on which everyone along the political spectrum can agree? If so, how about, say, 13 justices (one for each U.S. circuit court of appeals) for terms of, say, 26 years (chosen, say, every 2 years)? And if the consensus answer is “yes, Kay, that’s actually a very brilliant idea but that is also not entirely surprising given the progenitor of said idea,” then how would such a bipartisan idea come to fruition given the stridently partisan political climate??

 

Basically, many of my fellow comrades want to pack the courts. Normally I would be against such a thing, but I also don’t want five or six elderly right-wing out-of-touch individuals continuously blocking future domestic economic populist legislation that has amassed the support of ~70+% of the country. So I’m thinking of ways that our dear nation can avoid another Lochner Era crisis because I don’t think it would be good for the stability of our currently fragile democracy. A reversal of Roe v. Wade via yet another Tenth Amendment cop-out may become the dangerous catalyst for such a calamity, and it could easily happen this decade.

 

Or am I being overly dramatic? I’m still quite upset over the Thirteen Seconds game and am having a tough time processing my emotions. Please forgive me, PPP.

 

im not sure why justices cant be a elected position that has a equally diverse representation structure. no, not that diversity. in a perfect world justices would be impartial actors that go strictly by the law. in that case "packing" the court would make no difference. that is obviously not true and should be the main issue the public should be concerned with, not how do i get more of my ideology in there to "win" more. the fact the legislative constantly kicks issues over to courts instead of LEGISLATING is a trend people need to recognize as well. stop getting upset with rulings that have more to do with (this person does not have the POWER to do this). start getting upset the person who thought they did or worse, did not care.

 

a term limit? i dont think that would change much. the party in power will probably throw a nice retirement party and push the judge out the door if a term was anywhere close to ending so they can freshen up "their" judge for another full term. pretty much what's happening. i think this will be the new trend from here on out either way so expect the "teams" to stay the same for a very long time unless something unseen happens to a judge. i do agree having a life long term,  people ruling on important issues that have long past anything from their life experience has always been a horrable concept but people love it when looking at our past and current presidents. 

 

why do people keep advocating their party subvert the system to gain more power? ending fillabusters, packing courts, ect ect ect. the approval rating for this administration is in the 30%. most people don't want these changes but dems keep pushing on ahead regardless. its pretty troubling how close we are getting to a political party enacting changes that will lead to a 1 party rule. this uncompromising trust that their gov cares about them and will continue to even when they don't need them anymore or have to work with anyone with different viewpoints has made history books pretty thick with the most horrific things humans have done to each other. every one starts with the gov ensuring it is for the best. i certainly hope if the R's get power they dont try a tit for tat strategy and instead enact laws that stop this nonsense from ever taking place again. changes need to happen that stops parties from simply blocking the other side and using suffering as a political tool but those changes should require them to be FORCED to compromise, not ignored.

 

i guess the answer on the court would be find representatives from the major parties and have them select judges they can primary. say 5 repub 5 dems and there can be no hung juries in the judgments they make. so there has to be compromises or at least 1 judge who looks at the case differently. it would be really nice if more parties would finally get some power to add to this concept, libertarians, green party..whoever so the tie breakers would already be ingrained in a less polar structure and clear up all these 1 party power plays on their own. 

 

Edited January 30, 2022 by Buffarukus

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

TH, if you are unable to comprehend what is behind the articles posted that is your problem.

 

and your tendency to assign false equivalencies to those posts are again your own failing,

 

it simply shows the rest of the board that you are not to be taken seriously.

 

 

"Does it ever level with you"...................LOL

 

 

 

Back to the thread's subject.

 

 

 

 

And...........................SUBMIT.

 

 

 

 

 

And there it is in a nutshell.  People are being called racist and white supremacists for criticizing choosing a justice based on skin color.  Up is now down.........

 

I'll just sit back, munch my popcorn and watch the liberals chase their own tails.  

[Buffarukus]

2 hours ago, Chef Jim said:

 

And there it is in a nutshell.  People are being called racist and white supremacists for criticizing choosing a justice based on skin color.  Up is now down.........

 

I'll just sit back, munch my popcorn and watch the liberals chase their own tails.  

 

if he wanted a particular person then just pick. nobody would know or care. the fact he makes the anouncment it will be soley on race and gender  is a great way to get the go to democratic narrative going to divide people. lets make anyone who thinks picking people on their qualifications, which is the most reasonable thing imaginable into monsters.

 

the great uniter

Edited January 30, 2022 by Buffarukus

[JaCrispy]

7 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/us/supreme-court-black-women-biden.html?smid=url-share

 

 

The NYT says that "Black women in the legal community are bracing for the possibility that the yet-to-be-named nominee will be judged unfairly as an affirmative action appointment."

 

They quote a black female lawyer (Alisia Adamson Profit, 38): "People are going to say she only got this because she was a Black woman, and that could not be further from the truth. She would not even be considered if she wasn’t qualified, prepared and ready. There will be a segment that will discredit her ability to serve."

 

Ms. Profit's statement doesn't make sense. The nominee will almost certainly be "qualified, prepared and ready" and "ab[le] to serve," but that won't negate the fact that that she "only got this because she was a Black woman."

 

We know from Biden's express commitment that only black women will be considered. If this person who becomes the nominee were not a black woman, then it is plainly the case that she would not have received the nomination. Is the problem that "people are going to say" what is obviously true? Why can't we say it?

Is it a secret? Is it shameful? But Biden is openly saying it

 

 

Biden's advance announcement of intent prevents him and everyone else from doing what is normally done — asserting that the person chosen is actually the very best judicial mind in all the land. 

 

 

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2022/01/the-nyt-says-that-black-women-in-legal.html

It’s so funny...The Left complains that they fear people will judge the nominee as an “Affirmative Action Appointment”...Yet they are the ones who created that environment by basing their choice, strictly, on race...

 

I swear, how do these people’s brains not explode from the mental gymnastics, they constantly have to perform, to defend their positions? 😉

[Doc]

Well, at least that will be one campaign promise kept...

[ComradeKayAdams]

17 hours ago, Buffarukus said:

im not sure why justices cant be a elected position that has a equally diverse representation structure. no, not that diversity. in a perfect world justices would be impartial actors that go strictly by the law. in that case "packing" the court would make no difference. that is obviously not true and should be the main issue the public should be concerned with, not how do i get more of my ideology in there to "win" more. the fact the legislative constantly kicks issues over to courts instead of LEGISLATING is a trend people need to recognize as well. stop getting upset with rulings that have more to do with (this person does not have the POWER to do this). start getting upset the person who thought they did or worse, did not care.

 

a term limit? i dont think that would change much. the party in power will probably throw a nice retirement party and push the judge out the door if a term was anywhere close to ending so they can freshen up "their" judge for another full term. pretty much what's happening. i think this will be the new trend from here on out either way so expect the "teams" to stay the same for a very long time unless something unseen happens to a judge. i do agree having a life long term,  people ruling on important issues that have long past anything from their life experience has always been a horrable concept but people love it when looking at our past and current presidents. 

 

why do people keep advocating their party subvert the system to gain more power? ending fillabusters, packing courts, ect ect ect. the approval rating for this administration is in the 30%. most people don't want these changes but dems keep pushing on ahead regardless. its pretty troubling how close we are getting to a political party enacting changes that will lead to a 1 party rule. this uncompromising trust that their gov cares about them and will continue to even when they don't need them anymore or have to work with anyone with different viewpoints has made history books pretty thick with the most horrific things humans have done to each other. every one starts with the gov ensuring it is for the best. i certainly hope if the R's get power they dont try a tit for tat strategy and instead enact laws that stop this nonsense from ever taking place again. changes need to happen that stops parties from simply blocking the other side and using suffering as a political tool but those changes should require them to be FORCED to compromise, not ignored.

 

i guess the answer on the court would be find representatives from the major parties and have them select judges they can primary. say 5 repub 5 dems and there can be no hung juries in the judgments they make. so there has to be compromises or at least 1 judge who looks at the case differently. it would be really nice if more parties would finally get some power to add to this concept, libertarians, green party..whoever so the tie breakers would already be ingrained in a less polar structure and clear up all these 1 party power plays on their own.

 

Hi, Buffarukus. I’ll comment on your post by each paragraph:

 

Paragraph 1: Law is too arcane a field to be open to the general public for democratic voting. Also, constitutional law is not math or science with objective truths, so there’s no sense in pretending that the judicial branch can ever be anything but inherently political. And if we want a diversity of opinions and life experiences in our courts, I’d consider socioeconomic background as much as I would race and gender.

 

Paragraph 2: There’s a way around this predicament that you describe. In the case of death or early retirement, a sitting president can select that judge’s replacement, but that replacement can only serve out the remaining unused years of the predecessor’s term. So he or she doesn’t automatically get a renewed full term.

 

Paragraph 3: For the record, I personally do NOT advocate subverting the system (court packing, ending filibusters, etc.) to gain more power. The THREAT of subversion, however, is acceptable to me if it ends up persuading all involved parties to come to the bipartisan negotiating table like adults. Also remember that the GOP is playing their own version of unethical power games by using the judicial branch to obviate the will of the clear majority, as expressed via the legislative branch. The most prominent example from last year was Texas SB 8, but I expect many more examples this decade that will be centered around the far-left’s populist economic agenda (universal health care, corporate/Wall Street regulations, etc.). There are few angels and even fewer clean hands in politics…on either side.

 

Paragraph 4: We’ll probably need a ranked choice voting system implemented at every level of U.S. government before we are to realistically give third parties a meaningful voice.

[B-Man]

 

 

Anyone surprised ?

 

 

Biden’s chief of staff leaked Breyer retirement to ‘limited’ group, Durbin says. 

 

“Breyer was not ready to make the announcement. Fox News reported that Breyer was ‘blindsided,’ while sources told the Washington Examiner that Breyer was just beginning the standard process of scaling back, with plans to announce his retirement at the end of the current term in several months.”

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate/bidens-chief-of-staff-leaked-breyer-retirement-to-limited-group-durbin-says

 

 

 

[reddogblitz]

5 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Anyone surprised ?

 

 

Biden’s chief of staff leaked Breyer retirement to ‘limited’ group, Durbin says. 

 

“Breyer was not ready to make the announcement. Fox News reported that Breyer was ‘blindsided,’ while sources told the Washington Examiner that Breyer was just beginning the standard process of scaling back, with plans to announce his retirement at the end of the current term in several months.”

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate/bidens-chief-of-staff-leaked-breyer-retirement-to-limited-group-durbin-says

 

 

 

 

Makes me wonder if Justice Breyer and Tommy have the same agent.

[BillStime]

8 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Anyone surprised ?

 

 

Biden’s chief of staff leaked Breyer retirement to ‘limited’ group, Durbin says. 

 

“Breyer was not ready to make the announcement. Fox News reported that Breyer was ‘blindsided,’ while sources told the Washington Examiner that Breyer was just beginning the standard process of scaling back, with plans to announce his retirement at the end of the current term in several months.”

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/senate/bidens-chief-of-staff-leaked-breyer-retirement-to-limited-group-durbin-says

 

 

 

Laughable coming from the previous administration who had record breaking number of leaks a year.

 

Anyone surprised?

 

Under Trump, more leaks — and more leak investigations

 

The real reason the Trump administration has such a leak problem

 

Leaks of Classified Info Surge Under Trump

Trump Admin Wanted Record 334 Leaks Criminally Investigated: Report

 

Anyone surprised Bonnie has no foresight? 
 

smfh

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

                                                     

 

 

 

 

[B-Man]