SCOTUS

[Ivytalk]

Jackson has strong academic and professional credentials. And she’s only in her early 50s. Haven’t heard much “far left” stuff about her, except she has a D next to her name. If she gets the nomination, she’ll be confirmed without breaking a sweat. At least 55 votes in favor.

She's not nearly liberal enough for the Democratic/progressive base. She'd get over 50 votes if nominated, but Biden is going to be disappointing a lot of his base with a carbon copy of Kagan.

The same base that howled when Garland didn’t even get a vote? If Biden picks Jackson, the left will fall into line without a whimper.

[BDKJMU]

Conspiracy theory - Biden appoint Kamala Harris to the seat to get her out of the VP position so the Dems can put someone else in there to be the "incumbent" when Biden doesn't run again in 2024 because they know she is a loser.

Yeah, I alluded to that above:

So the left pushed out Breyer. That leaves them with a solution to get rid of their Commiela at the top of the ticket in 2024 problem…

https://nypost.com/2022/01/26/speculati ... ourt-pick/
The question is, in the event of a 50-50, could she cast the tie breaking vote for herself?

[BDKJMU]

Conks have had several picks in my lifetime that turned out to be more moderate (OConner, Kennedy, Roberts, Kavanaugh), or liberal (Souter).

Funny how the donks never seem to have a pick that doesn’t turn out out to be liberal. In that regard they do a better job than conks.

They should all be moderates.

They should all be Originalists.

[SDHornet]

I'd be surprised if this turn into some drawn out issue. Wouldn't be surprised to see a few conk Senators vote for the nominee.

[JoltinJoe]

She's not nearly liberal enough for the Democratic/progressive base. She'd get over 50 votes if nominated, but Biden is going to be disappointing a lot of his base with a carbon copy of Kagan.

The same base that howled when Garland didn’t even get a vote? If Biden picks Jackson, the left will fall into line without a whimper.

Maybe you're right. Overall, I'd think she'd be a great choice.

But I do think the progressive left wants another cultural flamethrower, like Sotomayor, not another Kagan.

[CAA Flagship]

Conks have had several picks in my lifetime that turned out to be more moderate (OConner, Kennedy, Roberts, Kavanaugh), or liberal (Souter).

Funny how the donks never seem to have a pick that doesn’t turn out out to be liberal. In that regard they do a better job than conks.

They should all be moderates.

I don't know. I'm OK with a lunatic or two from each side as long as it is balanced. It's important to hear the extreme side of the argument sometimes. You might say that is the job of the attorneys bringing the case forward. But they aren't as Constitution-focused as the SC judges who, I'd like to think, have a better grasp on precedent and the founder's intent.

Will lunatics move the needle much? No. But it may not take much for a moderate to flip sides. The lunatic can't be a rights activist though. They have to be able to make a convincing argument tied to the Constitution.

[Ibanez]

I’m not surprised you don’t care about a Republican flip flopping and being dishonest. The margins of power don’t matter 1 iota.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lindsey is your Senator. Don’t blame me.

I know. I didn't vote for that chump...that 2-faced, flip flopping, spineless chump.

[Ivytalk]

The same base that howled when Garland didn’t even get a vote? If Biden picks Jackson, the left will fall into line without a whimper.

Maybe you're right. Overall, I'd think she'd be a great choice.

But I do think the progressive left wants another cultural flamethrower, like Sotomayor, not another Kagan.

I think a lot of people were bamboozled by Sotomayor. She comes on with this grandmotherly “wise Latina” schtick and ends up being the most untethered leftist on the current Court.

[Ibanez]

They should all be moderates.

They should all be Originalists.

Evolution is fine. We don't need activism on the courts.

[Winterborn]

Yeah, I alluded to that above:

https://nypost.com/2022/01/26/speculati ... ourt-pick/
The question is, in the event of a 50-50, could she cast the tie breaking vote for herself?

The short answer is no.

Long answer is due to the differences in how the Senates power is set up in Article I, II, and the "Advice and Consent" role of the Senate the VP cannot cast a tie break vote in this area. Hamilton also stated this in one of the Federalist papers.

[JoltinJoe]

Maybe you're right. Overall, I'd think she'd be a great choice.

But I do think the progressive left wants another cultural flamethrower, like Sotomayor, not another Kagan.

I think a lot of people were bamboozled by Sotomayor. She comes on with this grandmotherly “wise Latina” schtick and ends up being the most untethered leftist ever.

FIFY.

She doesn't merely advocate what are untethered results -- personal preferences which she claims are constitutionally required -- she seeks to wreak institutional damage on the Court when she doesn't get her way.

[AZGrizFan]

The same base that howled when Garland didn’t even get a vote? If Biden picks Jackson, the left will fall into line without a whimper.

Maybe you're right. Overall, I'd think she'd be a great choice.

But I do think the progressive left wants another cultural flamethrower, like Sotomayor, not another Kagan.

of course they do. But she checks a lot of boxes that they're insisting on and that he promised.

[CID1990]

Both Jackson and Kruger are qualified - Jackson maybe a little more so. I suspect either of them would draw a few GOP votes for confirmation, and the no votes will come from Senate seats from super Trumpy states.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNI88]

I’m not surprised you don’t care about a Republican flip flopping and being dishonest. The margins of power don’t matter 1 iota.

Lindsey is representative of what the Republican Party became under Trump and like all Trump supporters, I'm responsible for my part in it.

FYP

[GannonFan]

The same base that howled when Garland didn’t even get a vote? If Biden picks Jackson, the left will fall into line without a whimper.

Maybe you're right. Overall, I'd think she'd be a great choice.

But I do think the progressive left wants another cultural flamethrower, like Sotomayor, not another Kagan.

The Dems would never badmouth an African American woman in this case, that would be political suicide. Biden put them in a corner when he mad eth race based decision on who the first nominee would be, and Jackson is such a leading candidate by so much that there'd be way too much backlash if they didn't go with her.

[BDKJMU]

So is this the 1st time in history that a POTUS has beforehand stated that he would pick his nominee based on both race and sex, instead of just saying would pick the best candidate available?

[GannonFan]

So is this the 1st time in history that a POTUS has beforehand stated that he would pick his nominee based on both race and sex, instead of just saying would pick the best candidate available?

I think it's the first BOTH race and sex. Pretty sure someone would've said before they would nominate a woman, or they would nominate a person of color or some minority.

I'm not hung up on it, per se. The two top contenders (Jackson and the one from CA) are very well qualified and would make good judges, and are probably in that top grouping of best candidates anyway - that's the advantage of never pulling a judge from that background before, it probably has been overdue. Again, we have Kavanaugh on the Court, so it hasn't always been the best candidate anyway and there have been plenty of examples of that as well going back through the years. Heck, we should be pretty happy that generally speaking, 7 out of 9 judges right now (well, 6.5, Amy Coney Barrett is still under consideration, but looks promising) are really top level jurists. Again, historically speaking, we haven't always been as fortunate.

On the bright side, with Biden saying he'll have the nominee by the end of February, it really puts some oomph into Black History Month this year. Biden may not have any good options with Russia or inflation or a declining mental state or a crappy VP behind him, but I'm sure they'll try to have him talk about this obvious pick as early and often as possible.

[BDKJMU]

They should all be Originalists.

Evolution is fine. We don't need activism on the courts.

‘Evolution’ can turn into activism. Less so with Originalism.

[BDKJMU]

So is this the 1st time in history that a POTUS has beforehand stated that he would pick his nominee based on both race and sex, instead of just saying would pick the best candidate available?

I think it's the first BOTH race and sex. Pretty sure someone would've said before they would nominate a woman, or they would nominate a person of color or some minority.

I'm not hung up on it, per se. The two top contenders (Jackson and the one from CA) are very well qualified and would make good judges, and are probably in that top grouping of best candidates anyway - that's the advantage of never pulling a judge from that background before, it probably has been overdue. Again, we have Kavanaugh on the Court, so it hasn't always been the best candidate anyway (and there have been plenty of examples of that as well going back through the years. Heck, we should be pretty happy that generally speaking, 7 out of 9 judges right now (well, 6.5, Amy Coney Barrett is still under consideration, but looks promising) are really top level jurists. Again, historically speaking, we haven't always been as fortunate.

You sure about that? Breyer came across as a moron during the oral arguements for Bidens vax mandate. Breyer 1st claimed there were ‘750 million new Covid cases yesterday’ and then asserted that the Biden mandate would prevent 100% of new cases

So if we delay it a day, and if it were to have effect, then 750,000 more people will have COVID, who otherwise, if we didn’t delay it, wouldn’t have?

[Ibanez]

Evolution is fine. We don't need activism on the courts.

‘Evolution’ can turn into activism. Less so with Originalism.

But Originalism is stuck in the 1700s and our society has evolved since.

[BDKJMU]

‘Evolution’ can turn into activism. Less so with Originalism.

But Originalism is stuck in the 1700s and our society has evolved since.

Spoken like an activist using that as an excuse not to follow the original meaning.

You want to ‘evolve’ the Constitution- thats what the amendment process is for.

[GannonFan]

I think it's the first BOTH race and sex. Pretty sure someone would've said before they would nominate a woman, or they would nominate a person of color or some minority.

I'm not hung up on it, per se. The two top contenders (Jackson and the one from CA) are very well qualified and would make good judges, and are probably in that top grouping of best candidates anyway - that's the advantage of never pulling a judge from that background before, it probably has been overdue. Again, we have Kavanaugh on the Court, so it hasn't always been the best candidate anyway (and there have been plenty of examples of that as well going back through the years. Heck, we should be pretty happy that generally speaking, 7 out of 9 judges right now (well, 6.5, Amy Coney Barrett is still under consideration, but looks promising) are really top level jurists. Again, historically speaking, we haven't always been as fortunate.

You sure about that? Breyer came across as a moron during the oral arguements for Bidens vax mandate. Breyer 1st claimed there were ‘750 million new Covid cases yesterday’ and then asserted that the Biden mandate would prevent 100% of new cases

So if we delay it a day, and if it were to have effect, then 750,000 more people will have COVID, who otherwise, if we didn’t delay it, wouldn’t have?

Careful, you're letting your conk-credentials show through. If you're not careful people around here will consider you a right winger. Yes, at one point he used the word "millions", but he said it correctly ("thousand") multiple times in the same argument. A slip of the tongue when he otherwise got it right is not necessarily "moron" level. I mean, you've corrected misspoken posts on here several times and only a few people think you're a moron. And I don't see where he technically said it would prevent 100% of new cases. The twitter guy said he did, but the quote wasn't that brazen, just rhetoric saying that it would stop many cases. These folks aren't reading from a script, they're oral arguments. Some latitude is allowed (although Sotomayor flew right past latitude into the absurd, but she wasn't the focus in this post).

[BDKJMU]

You sure about that? Breyer came across as a moron during the oral arguements for Bidens vax mandate. Breyer 1st claimed there were ‘750 million new Covid cases yesterday’ and then asserted that the Biden mandate would prevent 100% of new cases

Careful, you're letting your conk-credentials show through. If you're not careful people around here will consider you a right winger. Yes, at one point he used the word "millions", but he said it correctly ("thousand") multiple times in the same argument. A slip of the tongue when he otherwise got it right is not necessarily "moron" level. I mean, you've corrected misspoken posts on here several times and only a few people think you're a moron. And I don't see where he technically said it would prevent 100% of new cases. The twitter guy said he did, but the quote wasn't that brazen, just rhetoric saying that it would stop many cases. These folks aren't reading from a script, they're oral arguments. Some latitude is allowed (although Sotomayor flew right past latitude into the absurd, but she wasn't the focus in this post).

And I’m not a SCOTUS Justice. They’re suppose to be the All Pros of their profession. If I’m watching a football game on TV and say “That player is slow as fuck, god he sucks.” doesn’t mean he wouldn’t blow me away in a footrace.

Did you listen to the hearings? Breyer clearly seemed to believe that if the mandate was delayed, then poof, we’d have 750k more cases a day. That’s something that the average person wouldn’t say, and the justices are suppose to be smarter and more educated than 99.999% of the public. Certainly moronic for him to say.

Maybe he HAD a keen intellect, but it doesn’t seem so at 83.

[Ibanez]

But Originalism is stuck in the 1700s and our society has evolved since.

Spoken like an activist using that as an excuse not to follow the original meaning.

You want to ‘evolve’ the Constitution- that's what the amendment process is for.

Not at all true - in no way do I want a judge to rule based on personal feelings vs the law. I just don't want a judge to not consider that we're in 2021 and not the 1790s and that society, technology, economies, etc... has all changed. That's how we got the Dred Scott Decision.

We better define "Originalism" b/c there are different theories on that according to Georgetown Law.

I like what Gorsuch has laid out regarding originalism

Originalism is a theory focused on process, not on substance. It is not “Conservative” with a big C focused on politics. It is conservative in the small c sense that it seeks to conserve the meaning of the Constitution as it was written.

https://time.com/5670400/justice-neil-g ... stitution/

[Winterborn]

In a recent press conference Biden stated he will put forth a nomination by the end of February and that Harris will be working closely on advising him of the selection process.