SCOTUS

[BDKJMU]

Are they the most qualified?

Biden made the pick controversial by announcing that he would make his pick based on race and sex, something you’d think in this day and age we’d moved past.

Who said they were the "most qualified"? How frequently is the most qualified person selected? Do you really believe that there's never been a more qualified liberal judge that wasn't nominated by a Republican President because of their ideology, not qualifications?

Sure POTUSes of both parties for decades or longer have been nominating based on ideology as much as qualification. But never has one stated beforehand they would limit their nominee to a particular race and sex.

Imagine if Trump had said beforehand to replace Scalia, Kennedy, or Barret said he was only only going to nominate someone who was well qualified and they would be a white male, or an Italian American male (probably a sinilar single digit % of the population as black females) or a white female. The left would have lost their collective shit (even more so than tbey did with his 3 nominees).

[UNI88]

Who said they were the "most qualified"? How frequently is the most qualified person selected? Do you really believe that there's never been a more qualified liberal judge that wasn't nominated by a Republican President because of their ideology, not qualifications?

Sure POTUSes of both parties for decades or longer have been nominating based on ideology as much as qualification. But never has one stated beforehand they would limit their nominee to a particular race and sex.

Imagine if Trump had said beforehand to replace Scalia, Kennedy, or Barret said he was only only going to nominate someone who was well qualified and they would be a white male, or an Italian American male (probably a sinilar single digit % of the population as black females) or a white female. The left would have lost their collective shit (even more so than tbey did with his 3 nominees).

Kind of like how you're preparing to lose your collective shit over this nominee?

It would be one thing if he were to nominate an unqualified African American woman just to check a box but I don't see a problem with nominating a qualified African American woman. Nominating a qualified jurist and improving the diversity of SCOTUS is a good thing.

[JohnStOnge]

Who said they were the "most qualified"? How frequently is the most qualified person selected? Do you really believe that there's never been a more qualified liberal judge that wasn't nominated by a Republican President because of their ideology, not qualifications?

Sure POTUSes of both parties for decades or longer have been nominating based on ideology as much as qualification. But never has one stated beforehand they would limit their nominee to a particular race and sex.

I personally disagree with doing stuff like that. But the liberals have already pointed out the Ronald Reagan pretty much did it. He didn't explicitly say he would limit his very first pick to a particular sex. But he pledged to nominate someone of a particular sex. He said when he was running that he would nominate a woman then when he got elected he nominated Sandra Day O'Conner. That pretty much made it clear that her sex was a huge factor in O'Conner being nominated.

Here's an example of a liberal making the point (it starts with Reagan making the promise during the 1980 campaign):

[AZGrizFan]

Sure POTUSes of both parties for decades or longer have been nominating based on ideology as much as qualification. But never has one stated beforehand they would limit their nominee to a particular race and sex.

Imagine if Trump had said beforehand to replace Scalia, Kennedy, or Barret said he was only only going to nominate someone who was well qualified and they would be a white male, or an Italian American male (probably a sinilar single digit % of the population as black females) or a white female. The left would have lost their collective shit (even more so than tbey did with his 3 nominees).

Kind of like how you're preparing to lose your collective shit over this nominee?

It would be one thing if he were to nominate an unqualified African American woman just to check a box but I don't see a problem with nominating a qualified African American woman. Nominating a qualified jurist and improving the diversity of SCOTUS is a good thing.

So, like he did for VP?

[CID1990]

Meh

“I promise to pick a black woman for VP” is the same thing as saying “I promise to pick a black woman and end her political career”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Sure POTUSes of both parties for decades or longer have been nominating based on ideology as much as qualification. But never has one stated beforehand they would limit their nominee to a particular race and sex.

Imagine if Trump had said beforehand to replace Scalia, Kennedy, or Barret said he was only only going to nominate someone who was well qualified and they would be a white male, or an Italian American male (probably a sinilar single digit % of the population as black females) or a white female. The left would have lost their collective shit (even more so than tbey did with his 3 nominees).

Kind of like how you're preparing to lose your collective shit over this nominee?

It would be one thing if he were to nominate an unqualified African American woman just to check a box but I don't see a problem with nominating a qualified African American woman. Nominating a qualified jurist and improving the diversity of SCOTUS is a good thing.

You’re missing the whole point. The problem isn’t nominating a qualified black woman. The problem is Biden saying BEFOREHAND that he is going to only nominate a black woman That is Biden basically labeling his pick as an affirmative action pick (something no other POTUS has done), which is an extreme disservice to whomever he picks.

If Biden had just not said beforehand (2020 campaign and last week) that he was only going to nominate a black woman, and instead just stuck with the usual jargon about picking someone qualified from a diverse field of candidates yada yada, and then picked a qualified black woman, then there’s no issue.

[JohnStOnge]

That is Biden basically labeling his pick as an affirmative action pick (something no other POTUS has done), which is an extreme disservice to whomever he picks.

Did you not see the video of Ronald Reagan saying, during the 1980 Presidential campaign, that he was going to pick a woman? The "affirmative action" type pick is not something no other POTUS has done. Ronald Reagan, of all people, did it.

[BDKJMU]

That is Biden basically labeling his pick as an affirmative action pick (something no other POTUS has done), which is an extreme disservice to whomever he picks.

Did you not see the video of Ronald Reagan saying, during the 1980 Presidential campaign, that he was going to pick a woman? The "affirmative action" type pick is not something no other POTUS has done. Ronald Reagan, of all people, did it.

No Reagan dodn’t say beforehand he was going to limit his nominee to a certain race and gender. He didn’t say he was going to only pick a white woman. And I don’t think he should even have even said woman beforehand.

Like I said, no other POTUS has stated beforehand that he would only nominate someone of a certain race and gender..

[JohnStOnge]

Did you not see the video of Ronald Reagan saying, during the 1980 Presidential campaign, that he was going to pick a woman? The "affirmative action" type pick is not something no other POTUS has done. Ronald Reagan, of all people, did it.

No Reagan dodn’t say beforehand he was going to limit his nominee to a certain race and gender. He didn’t say he was going to only pick a white woman. And I don’t think he should even have even said woman beforehand.

Like I said, no other POTUS has stated beforehand that he would only nominate someone of a certain race and gender..

Well, you can quibble by saying he didn't talk about gender AND race. But what you wrote in the post to which I was responding is that no POTUS had ever done an affirmative action type of pick it was clearly an affirmative action"type of pick. Republicans trying to say that nothing like this has ever been done before are really stretching it.

[Ivytalk]

No Reagan dodn’t say beforehand he was going to limit his nominee to a certain race and gender. He didn’t say he was going to only pick a white woman. And I don’t think he should even have even said woman beforehand.

Like I said, no other POTUS has stated beforehand that he would only nominate someone of a certain race and gender..

Well, you can quibble by saying he didn't talk about gender AND race. But what you wrote in the post to which I was responding is that no POTUS had ever done an affirmative action type of pick it was clearly an affirmative action"type of pick. Republicans trying to say that nothing like this has ever been done before are really stretching it.

So “libertarian” StWronge is perfectly content with the nomination of an uber-liberal statist, who just happens to be a black woman, to SCOTUS, just like Sleepy Joe wants. Got it.

[BDKJMU]

No Reagan dodn’t say beforehand he was going to limit his nominee to a certain race and gender. He didn’t say he was going to only pick a white woman. And I don’t think he should even have even said woman beforehand.

Like I said, no other POTUS has stated beforehand that he would only nominate someone of a certain race and gender..

Well, you can quibble by saying he didn't talk about gender AND race. But what you wrote in the post to which I was responding is that no POTUS had ever done an affirmative action type of pick it was clearly an affirmative action"type of pick. Republicans trying to say that nothing like this has ever been done before are really stretching it.

A pick that excludes 50% of the population isn’t in the same realm as one that excludes 94%. For you to try to compare the 2 is really stetching it.

And again I think Reagan was wrong- not in picking a qualified woman, but in announcing beforehand he was only going to pick a woman. Wasn’t the only mistake Reagan made.

[SuperHornet]

Having had at least a preliminary look at the three being bandied about, NONE of these three are an "affirmative action" pick. They're all well qualified, one being a circuit court judge on the US Court of Appeals, another a US District Judge, and the third an associate on a State Supreme Court. They all seem rather equal in terms of qualifications. I'm not sure where their politics lie, but they're certainly qualified, and in that respect, like Lindsey Graham, I have no problem with them.

The one thing separating them is the fact that Childs went to a public law school, while both Kruger and Jackson attended Ivy League law schools. The typical attitude is that one HAS to have an Ivy or Ivy equivalent (i.e. Stanford or Bezerkeley, which although public, is certainly considered "elite" or "elitist") to be "credible" as a SCOTUS candidate. Like Graham, I'm leaning toward Childs. Well qualified, and one to eliminate the elitist aura surrounding SCOTUS. Given that Clyburn is ALSO backing Childs, her nomination would not surprise me. And it doesn't hurt that she's not a do-nothing, all-mouth politician like Harris....

[CID1990]

Having had at least a preliminary look at the three being bandied about, NONE of these three are an "affirmative action" pick. They're all well qualified, one being a circuit court judge on the US Court of Appeals, another a US District Judge, and the third an associate on a State Supreme Court. They all seem rather equal in terms of qualifications. I'm not sure where their politics lie, but they're certainly qualified, and in that respect, like Lindsey Graham, I have no problem with them.

The one thing separating them is the fact that Childs went to a public law school, while both Kruger and Jackson attended Ivy League law schools. The typical attitude is that one HAS to have an Ivy or Ivy equivalent (i.e. Stanford or Bezerkeley, which although public, is certainly considered "elite" or "elitist") to be "credible" as a SCOTUS candidate. Like Graham, I'm leaning toward Childs. Well qualified, and one to eliminate the elitist aura surrounding SCOTUS. Given that Clyburn is ALSO backing Childs, her nomination would not surprise me. And it doesn't hurt that she's not a do-nothing, all-mouth politician like Harris....

Agreed. All three are good picks. I’d vote to confirm any of them, with a slight lean to SC


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

Biden owes his Presidency to Jim Clyburn, so Childs has to be the betting favorite. None of them have appreciable federal appellate experience. Jackson has been on the DC. Circuit for about 7 months, and Childs has been nominated for that court.

[Ibanez]

Biden owes his Presidency to Jim Clyburn, so Childs has to be the betting favorite. None of them have appreciable federal appellate experience. Jackson has been on the DC. Circuit for about 7 months, and Childs has been nominated for that court.

Childs is getting some positive press from Lady G. One might suggest that if Biden wants Jackson on the SC, Childs has to take her spot on the DC. I'm sure that option is being discussed. Graham could bring several Republicans with him to vote for Jackson (or Childs, but I agree that she doesn't have the experience yet.)

[BDKJMU]

An overwhelming majority of Americans believe President Biden should consider all possible candidates to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, while fewer than one in four back his pledge to nominate a black woman, a new poll shows...

..according to an ANC News/Ipsos Poll poll out Sunday, only 23 percent of Americans want the president to follow through with that commitment, while 76 percent think he should “consider all possible nominees.”

Broken down by political party, 95 percent of Republicans opt for “consider all” compared to 54 percent of Democrats.

https://nypost.com/2022/01/30/poll-bide ... eme-court/

[BDKJMU]

Tulsi is right.

[BDKJMU]

Having had at least a preliminary look at the three being bandied about, NONE of these three are an "affirmative action" pick. They're all well qualified, one being a circuit court judge on the US Court of Appeals, another a US District Judge, and the third an associate on a State Supreme Court. They all seem rather equal in terms of qualifications. I'm not sure where their politics lie, but they're certainly qualified, and in that respect, like Lindsey Graham, I have no problem with them.

The one thing separating them is the fact that Childs went to a public law school, while both Kruger and Jackson attended Ivy League law schools. The typical attitude is that one HAS to have an Ivy or Ivy equivalent (i.e. Stanford or Bezerkeley, which although public, is certainly considered "elite" or "elitist") to be "credible" as a SCOTUS candidate. Like Graham, I'm leaning toward Childs. Well qualified, and one to eliminate the elitist aura surrounding SCOTUS. Given that Clyburn is ALSO backing Childs, her nomination would not surprise me. And it doesn't hurt that she's not a do-nothing, all-mouth politician like Harris....

Saying you are only going to pick someone of a certain race and sex makes it the very definition of an affirmative action pick for anyone who is picked, irregardless of their resume.

[CID1990]

Tulsi is right.

There is some truth to this except for one thing -

Everybody with a brain knew Kamala was an empty suit (to use JSO’s fallacious logic)

But there are a couple black women out there who are eminently qualified for the high court … and if Biden nominates one of them then the Harris analogy will not apply.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

Tulsi is right.

There is some truth to this except for one thing -

Everybody with a brain knew Kamala was an empty suit (to use JSO’s fallacious logic)

But there are a couple black women out there who are eminently qualified for the high court … and if Biden nominates one of them then the Harris analogy will not apply.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True. All Biden had to say during the 2020 campaign and last week was somethig along the lines of ‘am going to pick from among a diverse field of candidates’, yada, yada, the end. Then picks one of those couple of well qualified black female judges. Then there’s no arguement that its a affirmative action/quota pick.

Instead Biden makes his preemptive race/gender litmus test pledge during the campaign and last week. It unecessarily undermines his nominee on the court, it further politicizes the court (I know its totally politiczed anyway, but it causes more to look at it that way). Just dumb on Biden’s part (really his handlers). To be expected I guess from the king of identity politics.

[CID1990]

There is some truth to this except for one thing -

Everybody with a brain knew Kamala was an empty suit (to use JSO’s fallacious logic)

But there are a couple black women out there who are eminently qualified for the high court … and if Biden nominates one of them then the Harris analogy will not apply.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True. All Biden had to say during the 2020 campaign and last week was somethig along the lines of ‘am going to pick from among a diverse field of candidates’, yada, yada, the end. Then picks one of those couple of well qualified black female judges. Then there’s no arguement that its a affirmative action/quota pick.

Instead Biden makes his preemptive race/gender litmus test pledge during the campaign and last week. It unecessarily undermines his nominee on the court, it further politicizes the court (I know its totally politiczed anyway, but it causes more to look at it that way). Just dumb on Biden’s part (really his handlers). To be expected I guess from the king of identity politics.

So, Biden panders to race for the 53574456th time in his political career and we are up in arms why?

Its what he does. He fucked it up with VPOTUS. I doubt that will happen with the SCOTUS pick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

Biden owes his Presidency to Jim Clyburn, so Childs has to be the betting favorite. None of them have appreciable federal appellate experience. Jackson has been on the DC. Circuit for about 7 months, and Childs has been nominated for that court.

Childs is getting some positive press from Lady G.

Lady Gaga is an expert on judicial nominations? Who knew?

[Ibanez]

Childs is getting some positive press from Lady G.

Lady Gaga is an expert on judicial nominations? Who knew?

Lindsey Graham is Lady G, Lady G is Lindsey Graham.

[Ivytalk]

Lady Gaga is an expert on judicial nominations? Who knew?

Lindsey Graham is Lady G, Lady G is Lindsey Graham.

Gaga is actually pretty smart. I’d like to see her run for Senate from Michigan, where she’s from. Could she be any worse than Stabenow?

[Ibanez]

Lindsey Graham is Lady G, Lady G is Lindsey Graham.

Gaga is actually pretty smart. I’d like to see her run for Senate from Michigan, where she’s from. Could she be any worse than Stabenow?

I don't know much about her intelligence. I've heard her sing a few jazz songs and some of her album with Tony Bennet and thought she was pretty good.