Supreme Court nominee

[Grandpot]

People that will not be nominated by the President:

1. No males
2. No whites
3. No Native Americans
4. No Asians
5. No Polynesias

Sounds like a racist, sexist decision.   What happened to selecting the most qualified individual?

[Rams]

From the bottom of my soul, I really mean this, I prefer a balanced court.  It is currently a slightly moderate but right leaning court regardless of what some news networks claim.  YMMV  There are a couple of jurists that surprise me frequently with their opinions.  Justice Roberts being one of them.  Neither the far right or left are good for the country but, the choice shouldn't be based on race or sex.  That's just my opinion.   Biden is just trying to fulfill a campaign promise and get something into the win column.   He really needs a win considering the last year and all of his leadership failures.  He's going to get who he wants (unless that person has some dirty laundry), that person will be vetted so as to not give the opposition any ammunition.   That opposition could include Senators from his own party.  We'll see.

This nominee won't change the current balance of the court which, I kind of like.   But could effect things down the road.   I really don't care what color or sex the person is, what I do want is, a Constitutionalist.   I'm doubtful that will occur.

Rams

[MAD6Gun]

From the bottom of my soul, I really mean this, I prefer a balanced court.  It is currently a slightly moderate but right leaning court regardless of what some news networks claim.  YMMV  There are a couple of jurists that surprise me frequently with their opinions.  Justice Roberts being one of them.  Neither the far right or left are good for the country but, the choice shouldn't be based on race or sex.  That's just my opinion.   Biden is just trying to fulfill a campaign promise and get something into the win column.   He really needs a win considering the last year and all of his leadership failures.  He's going to get who he wants (unless that person has some dirty laundry), that person will be vetted so as to not give the opposition any ammunition.   That opposition could include Senators from his own party.  We'll see.

This nominee won't change the current balance of the court which, I kind of like.   But could effect things down the road.   I really don't care what color or sex the person is, what I do want is, a Constitutionalist.   I'm doubtful that will occur.

Rams

 Exactly Ron. The Supreme Court is there to interpret the law as it is applied to the Constitution. PERIOD. No testifying,no personal comments,ect... When Sodemeyer testified that 100,000 kids are on ventilators due to covid a out and out blatant lie she has no place on the Court.

 The reports I have seen on Biden's nominees is that most of them have been on their benches for less then a year. How does that qualify them for the highest Court in the land?  Another point. If he does put a black women on the court just because she is such isn't that going to taint anything she stands for. Some will say she is the "token" such as such.

 If holding someone back because they are a minority is bad, isn't elevating them to a job they are not qualified for, for the same reason just as bad?

[carolinarider09]

I made a post here about the proposed nominee.  I will not repeat it.  Its Post #30 at the link below. 

http://www.valkyrieforum.com/bbs/index.php/topic,120615.0.html

[scooperhsd]

To be fair - what I would want as a Supreme Court Justice is the highest qualified candidate, regardless of any other traits (M/F, race, ethnicity, Conservative / liberal).

[Patrick]

People that will not be nominated by the President:

1. No males
2. No whites
3. No Native Americans
4. No Asians
5. No Polynesias

Sounds like a racist, sexist decision.   What happened to selecting the most qualified individual?

He has always been a racist. Watch his old videos, especially those with Robert Byrd.
He opposed integration saying he didn't want his kids going to school in a racial jungle.

[Moonshot_1]

From the bottom of my soul, I really mean this, I prefer a balanced court.  It is currently a slightly moderate but right leaning court regardless of what some news networks claim.  YMMV  There are a couple of jurists that surprise me frequently with their opinions.  Justice Roberts being one of them.  Neither the far right or left are good for the country but, the choice shouldn't be based on race or sex.  That's just my opinion.   Biden is just trying to fulfill a campaign promise and get something into the win column.   He really needs a win considering the last year and all of his leadership failures.  He's going to get who he wants (unless that person has some dirty laundry), that person will be vetted so as to not give the opposition any ammunition.   That opposition could include Senators from his own party.  We'll see.

This nominee won't change the current balance of the court which, I kind of like.   But could effect things down the road.   I really don't care what color or sex the person is, what I do want is, a Constitutionalist.   I'm doubtful that will occur.

Rams

The Supreme Court, in their decision making role, should, and for the good of the Country and society, be strongly of a conservative bent.

The reason is that we have the ability to amend the Constitution.

If we as a society wish to have the view of a law seen in a more "liberal" manner, we can change the Constitution to reflect that and then the Supreme Court would be bound by it. Because their role is to interpret the Legislation relative to the Constitution. Which we amended.

To have a Supreme Court that takes a liberal approach and effectively "legislate from the bench" serves no one.  We can't amend the Constitution for any purpose if the Courts are going to rule outside of the Constitution's restraints.

This is not a political view or opinion. As I said, if we would want a more "liberal" take on legislation we can amend the Constitution to reflect that and a Conservative Court would rule appropriately because they are a conservative Court. That would be it's nature.

If we as a society want a more "conservative" take on legislation, and we have a Court that makes end runs around the Constitution in their rulings, there is no way to amend the Constitution to achieve that. That would be the nature of a "liberal" Court.

So a strong leaning conservative bench is the way to go.

[f6gal]

Some have short memories.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/27/biden-scotus-pick-conservative-criticism/

Behind a pay wall.  You're going to have to copy and paste to make your point.

[Serk]

Some have short memories.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/27/biden-scotus-pick-conservative-criticism/

Behind a pay wall.  You're going to have to copy and paste to make your point.

No comment on the article, but if it's from The Washington Compost, well.....

The very selective effort to cast Biden’s Supreme Court pick as an affirmative action hire

President Biden and the Democratic Party got a shot in the arm Wednesday with the news that Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer will retire. His retirement paves the way for Democrats to replace the 83-year-old with a liberal-leaning justice who could hold the seat for decades to come.

It’s not yet clear how hard Republicans might fight whomever Biden picks, particularly given that the pick won’t shift the current balance of the court. But almost immediately, some conservatives did signal an early battleground: attacking Biden for supposedly making Breyer’s replacement an affirmative action hire. Some even ventured to argue that Biden’s promise to appoint a Black woman constitutes illegal discrimination.

It’s a very selective argument.

“Biden said he will make his pick based purely on race and gender,” Fox News’s Sean Hannity said. He did so while introducing arguably Fox’s favorite constitutional lawyer, Jonathan Turley, who has written multiple op-eds suggesting that Biden’s promise is unconstitutional discrimination.

Added Tucker Carlson: “It’s possible we have all marinated for so long in the casual racism of affirmative action that it seems normal now to reduce human beings to their race.”

Ben Shapiro called it “definitionally affirmative action and race discrimination.”

The editors of the National Review said, “In a stroke, [Biden] disqualified dozens of liberal and progressive jurists for no reason other than their race and gender.”

Former Trump United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley tweeted, “Would be nice if Pres Biden chose a Supreme Court nominee who was best qualified without a race/gender litmus test.”

History, though, shows this is hardly a new thing — nor have such promises been determined to run afoul of the law. And, in fact, Haley appears to have said nothing when President Donald Trump signaled just two years ago that he had his own gender litmus test for a Supreme Court nomination.

Nor is Trump the only recent GOP president to make such a pledge. In fact, two and potentially three of the last four Republican presidents did the same thing — with little sign of such conservative pushback.

Late in the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan promised that he would appoint a woman to the Supreme Court if given the opportunity. He said he would pick “the most qualified woman I can possibly find,” adding: “It is time for a woman to sit among the highest jurists.”

George H.W. Bush arguably engaged in the same practice. When Justice Thurgood Marshall retired and Clarence Thomas was eventually picked, Bush took care to say his pick would not be based on a “quota” or anything other than the best person for the job. But administration officials noted at the time that his search just happened to focus almost exclusively on minority and female candidates.

In the first two cases in particular, the pool of potential candidates was substantially decreased by the promise. So the question becomes why eliminating a huge majority of potential picks (by promising a woman) wasn’t discrimination, or why it doesn’t assign a historical “asterisk,” as one critic suggested it would to Biden’s pick, to the tenures of Amy Coney Barrett (Trump’s pick) and Sandra Day O’Connor (Reagan’s), but this one does. Or at least, why the people crying foul now didn’t also cry foul when Trump made his promise less than two years ago?

Biden’s promise was more specific than Trump’s, but why is the line drawn here? And when it comes to Reagan’s promise, the practical implications aren’t as different from Biden’s as you might think.

In 1980, only 8 percent of lawyers were women, and only about 5 percent of federal judges were. That meant Reagan’s promise excluded about 92 percent of lawyers and 95 percent of federal judges.

Today, about 5 percent of lawyers are Black (statistics are not so readily available for Black women, specifically), and about 5 percent of federal judges are Black women. Given that federal judges are usually chosen for the Supreme Court — 12 of the last 13 confirmed justices came from federal courts — Biden pared down the pool of candidates about as much as Reagan did four decades prior.

The arguments also ignore plenty of other things that could be construed as discrimination. It’s clear that presidents have little time for considering or appointing older justices, for example — because that means they wouldn’t spend as many years on the bench. (Trump even played up the youth of his first pick, Neil M. Gorsuch, by suggesting that Gorsuch might serve for 50 years.)

In practical terms, that has meant we’ve had only one justice over the age of 55 confirmed since 1986. What are the odds that the supposed best candidate has almost always not been someone older than 55? Excluding older candidates from the search would seem to be some form of age discrimination, especially given that those older justices would have been practicing law and deciding cases for much longer.

The point is that this seems to be a very convenient moment to suddenly raise such a fuss — one in which a rather arbitrary line is being drawn.

But it’s also one that could put pressure on Republican officeholders to take a stand. Are they, too, going to complain that this pick was designated for a Black woman, after not complaining about Trump designating one for a woman? Or is this merely the only thing professional pundits have to work with at this point? — an effort to rile up the conservative base, without much follow-through.

We shall see.

[Rams]

Some have short memories.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/27/biden-scotus-pick-conservative-criticism/

Behind a pay wall.  You're going to have to copy and paste to make your point.

I’m too lazy to copy and paste. The gist of the story is that Reagan pronounced he would nominate a woman for the court during the campaign. Daddy Bush focused almost entirely on minority and female candidates when replacing Thurmond Marshall. Trump said his nominee for replacing the Notorious RBG would be a woman.

I don't remember but don't doubt what you're saying.  All trying to satisfy their base.

Rams

[Jersey mike]

Why can’t it just be the BEST person suited for the job.

No gender, no race, nothing but the best PERSON with a track record of following the constitution and the rule of law?

[scooperhsd]

Why can’t it just be the BEST person suited for the job.

No gender, no race, nothing but the best PERSON with a track record of following the constitution and the rule of law?

Sounds like we want the same thing.

[Valkorado]

I wonder if they'll consider applicants who identify as woke African American females, or will they only accept resumes from the genuine ones?

I tossed in the woke prerequisite.  I'm pretty sure that'll be mandatory, too.

[carolinarider09]

Why can’t it just be the BEST person suited for the job.

No gender, no race, nothing but the best PERSON with a track record of following the constitution and the rule of law?

The answer is simple and complex at the same time.   All you have to do is look into the mirror and see.  We are all responsible for this reliance on race, gender, party affiliation, ect. 

We have accepted it.  We have allowed the status quo to be what it is. 

Now, we can have a President, who was good friends with several racist members of Congress, stand up and tell us that its ok to be racist if you support the right race.   

The same thing happens when it comes to gender. 

[RP#62]

The WP article seems to make the point that in the past, the other party made racist/sexist appointments, so its OK if Biden does it.

-RP

[RP#62]

The WP article seems to make the point that in the past, the other party made racist/sexist appointments, so its OK if Biden does it.

-RP

I think the point was that they are politicians. It is inherent in their nature to do this.

So you're ok with it?

-RP

[carolinarider09]

Here is a write up from our local TV station (WIS-TV) regarding the most likely Supreme Court nominee from President Biden.

Note: Antjuan Seawright is a Columbia-based Democratic strategist.

Seawright said that Biden’s commitment to select the first Black woman to the nation’s highest court, whoever it might be, will help define his legacy.

“The browning of America is happening before our very eyes,” he said. “And I think this president’s commitment to diversity, to racial diversity and gender diversity, age diversity and geographic diversity has been very reflective of his decisions to nominate certain folks and to appoint certain folks to these positions.”

The president said on Thursday that he would nominate a justice by the end of February. Seawright said this was a “wink and a nod” to South Carolinians.

“Those of us who were around South Carolina at the end of February 2020, we know it was the South Carolina primary and the South Carolina debate that launched him to his presidency,” he said. “And so how ironic and iconic would it be if the president made his announcement on the anniversary of the South Carolina debate and or the South Carolina primary.[/i]”

https://www.wistv.com/2022/01/28/democratic-strategist-weighs-sc-judge-j-michelle-childs-being-scotus-shortlist/

[Moonshot_1]

I wonder if they'll consider applicants who identify as woke African American females, or will they only accept resumes from the genuine ones?

I tossed in the woke prerequisite.  I'm pretty sure that'll be mandatory, too.

RuPaul is still the front runner.

[Moonshot_1]

To be fair - what I would want as a Supreme Court Justice is the highest qualified candidate, regardless of any other traits (M/F, race, ethnicity, Conservative / liberal).

I dunno. Thought about this.

As long as those on the short list meet a minimum requirement for the SCOTUS job, and that minimum would be quite high in it's own regard, I wouldn't require that the "Best" from that list be chosen. That judgment is subjective.

I think this because of Tom Brady. 199th pick in the draft.

Got no idea who was 1st pick that year.

Point is that once you clear the minimum requirements with all on the short list, other criteria have value.

[Ramie]

The WP article seems to make the point that in the past, the other party made racist/sexist appointments, so its OK if Biden does it.

-RP

I think the point was that they are politicians. It is inherent in their nature to do this.

I agree, they are always looking out for themselves no matter which side their on.  I sometimes think for them there is only one side.  There may be some who are truly altruistic but those are far and few between.  We are way past the point where their able to choose the most qualified person. 

[RP#62]

The WP article seems to make the point that in the past, the other party made racist/sexist appointments, so its OK if Biden does it.

-RP

I think the point was that they are politicians. It is inherent in their nature to do this.

So you're ok with it?

-RP

It seems kind of foolish to limit your choices to me.

I agree.  You'd have thought with his experience, he would have had a little more political savy and say that he's going to pick the most qualified person and then if he was so inclined, narrow the choices down to the demographic he wanted.  Going about it the way he did puts whomever he picks in the position of knowing that they were hired because of how they look and not necessarily due to their competence.

-RP

[Valkorado]

You forget, when he said that was during the campaign. His was doing what he thought would get him the most votes.

Yup.  Like saying he was going to whoop up on COVID, save the economy, fix immigration policy, work with both parties from a moderate stance, show true administrative transparency and bring America together.  You get the gist. 

He would say anything to get votes.  I think that's known as speaking with a forked tongue.

[cookiedough]

It will probably be a black woman, sure hope she is qualified is all.   Am shocked not having a #3 thru #5 though....

My wife's work changed up the board members all years past all white mostly older males, few females, to nearly all Mexican or blacks and more females than males now.  Times are changing for sure and sometimes for the better....   

[MotoRod]

Sounds like segregation to me.  I thought we got rid of blacks only places.

[Patrick]

The pendulum is swinging. As far as I'm concerned its gone way too far to the left. I think/hope eventually it'll come back to the middle where it belongs.

[G-Man]

Why can’t it just be the BEST person suited for the job.

No gender, no race, nothing but the best PERSON with a track record of following the constitution and the rule of law?

Ask the Asians who are getting shut out of Harvard and the elite high schools in NYC about that concept.  

I have said it hundreds of times, probably hundreds of times on this board alone........  The Democrat Party is the party of BLATANT racism.  If you need more examples I only offer one that should cover ANY question in your mind or ANY opposing views.........  Ending School Vouchers.  PERIOD.  This is THE MOST RACIST THING A PARTY CAN DO.  Keep them isolated in crappy schools.  Keeps them dumb and dependent.  Then they use the greatest Public Relations firm, the American media, to blame the other guys.  Despicable.  Deplorable.  Depraved.  

[old2soon]

Why can’t it just be the BEST person suited for the job.

No gender, no race, nothing but the best PERSON with a track record of following the constitution and the rule of law?

Ask the Asians who are getting shut out of Harvard and the elite high schools in NYC about that concept.  

I have said it hundreds of times, probably hundreds of times on this board alone........  The Democrat Party is the party of BLATANT racism.  If you need more examples I only offer one that should cover ANY question in your mind or ANY opposing views.........  Ending School Vouchers.  PERIOD.  This is THE MOST RACIST THING A PARTY CAN DO.  Keep them isolated in crappy schools.  Keeps them dumb and dependent.  Then they use the greatest Public Relations firm, the American media, to blame the other guys.  Despicable.  Deplorable.  Depraved.  

             Shoulda added Democrat! RIDE SAFE.

[..]

The WP article seems to make the point that in the past, the other party made racist/sexist appointments, so its OK if Biden does it.

-RP

I think the point was that they are politicians. It is inherent in their nature to do this.

So you're ok with it?

-RP

It seems kind of foolish to limit your choices to me.

I agree.  You'd have thought with his experience, he would have had a little more political savy and say that he's going to pick the most qualified person and then if he was so inclined, narrow the choices down to the demographic he wanted.  Going about it the way he did puts whomever he picks in the position of knowing that they were hired because of how they look and not necessarily due to their competence.

-RP

You forget, when he said that was during the campaign. His was doing what he thought would get him the most votes.

You are admitting that most of his campaign speeches were in fact mainly lies??? 

[carolinarider09]

[
You are admitting that most of his campaign speeches were in fact mainly lies??? 

 

[Skinhead]

[
You are admitting that most of his campaign speeches were in fact mainly lies??? 

 

Short answer?   YES

[Patrick]

The WP article seems to make the point that in the past, the other party made racist/sexist appointments, so its OK if Biden does it.

-RP

I think the point was that they are politicians. It is inherent in their nature to do this.

So you're ok with it?

-RP

It seems kind of foolish to limit your choices to me.

I agree.  You'd have thought with his experience, he would have had a little more political savy and say that he's going to pick the most qualified person and then if he was so inclined, narrow the choices down to the demographic he wanted.  Going about it the way he did puts whomever he picks in the position of knowing that they were hired because of how they look and not necessarily due to their competence.

-RP

You forget, when he said that was during the campaign. His was doing what he thought would get him the most votes.

You are admitting that most of his campaign speeches were in fact mainly lies??? 

The man has been lying for almost 50yrs. He thinks he's good at it. Apparently some others do to.

[Moonshot_1]

You are admitting that most of his campaign speeches were in fact mainly lies??? 


I haven't thought that ANY of his speeches were "manly lies". More like sissy lies.

[Patrick]

You are admitting that most of his campaign speeches were in fact mainly lies??? 


I haven't thought that ANY of his speeches were "manly lies". More like sissy lies.

 

[Rams]

I seriously support the President in considering a Black Woman for this upcoming opening on SCOTUS, I realize he was trying to gain support of Liberals by making the promise to put a Black Woman on SCOTUS but, I do think it's very limiting to not include the other 94% of Americans that might be qualified.   I honestly don't believe most of America cares about the race or sex of the selectee but, they all want a qualified jurist and not someone selected because of their color or sex.

He could have avoided much of this controversy had he said that he would give serious consideration to a minority jurist had he not painted himself into a corner on this.

We all know the selectee will be a left leaning Democrat.  Regardless of the color or sex of the selectee, I personally would prefer a Conservative but, that's just me.   It won't change the current balance of the court.   Biden needs to put something in his win column, he's had a disastrous first year, all due to his own lack of leadership.   For someone who campaigned on bringing the country together, his success rate has been dismal.

Rams

[Moonshot_1]

 "For someone who campaigned on bringing the country together, his success rate has been dismal."

I dunno, if you can bring 50,000+ into a sports stadium to tell you to get ------ that is pretty successful in bringing the country together.

[Rams]

"For someone who campaigned on bringing the country together, his success rate has been dismal."

I dunno, if you can bring 50,000+ into a sports stadium to tell you to get ------ that is pretty successful in bringing the country together.

Well, there is that but, I'm not real sure he wanted such a response.  As has been stated many times, we get the government we deserve.   About half of the country did, the other half not so much.    We can fix some of that in 2022.  

Rams

[Willow]

What race and gender is selected is a lesser issue.  The President stated that the nominee that he selects will need to have a view of finding unenumerated rights regarding the Constitution. 

[scooperhsd]

The President stated that the nominee that he selects will need to have a view of finding unenumerated rights regarding the Constitution. 

That's going to be a problem....

[G-Man]

   I honestly don't believe most of America cares about the race or sex of the selectee but, they all want a qualified jurist and not someone selected because of their color or sex.

He could have avoided much of this controversy had he said that he would give serious consideration to a minority jurist had he not painted himself into a corner on this.

We ALL agree that we don't care and had he just done it, there may have been a stink for a very little while (because there definitely ARE some racist a$$holes in this country), but it would have died down quickly and we'd all be moving on. 

As for painting himself....... this was done on person and out loud.  This just adds to Left's war on women, especially minority women.  Instead of just picking one and moving on, he CHOSE to rip the bandage off verrrrrrry sloooooooowly.  This taints anyone he pics as "The one Biden picked because SHE was BLACK".    It's what they do, they can't help themselves because their bigotry is so entrenched that it has to become part of everything they do. 

Ha, you're not gonna make my kids go to school in a jungle,..........  Poor kids are just as good as White kids, I tell you, you dog-faced pony boy!  Where's that smart dressed, well spoken colored kid named Obamy when I need him?  And get me another 9-year-old to sniff, it's nappy time.

[Willow]

We ALL agree that we don't care and had he just done it, there may have been a stink for a very little while (because there definitely ARE some racist a$$holes in this country), but it would have died down quickly and we'd all be moving on. 

As for painting himself....... this was done on person and out loud.  This just adds to Left's war on women, especially minority women.  Instead of just picking one and moving on, he CHOSE to rip the bandage off verrrrrrry sloooooooowly.  This taints anyone he pics as "The one Biden picked because SHE was BLACK".    It's what they do, they can't help themselves because their bigotry is so entrenched that it has to become part of everything they do. 
... 

The point of saying what he said was not to help out a minority female.  The sole purpose was to buy some voters.  Perhaps it did work.  Now he has to be concerned about "next".