Stephen Breyer to Retire From Supreme Court After 27 Years

Have you ever read the Constitution?

 

"Geriatric Joe" will go down in history as the President who nominated the first African-American female SC justice.
Trump will go down in history as the only President impeached twice, and for instigating an insurrection.

 

I was trying to illustrate the fact that a person must EARN his position and income -- not merely expect to be given anything extra or better on the basis of skin color....

 

Which is NOT the same as choosing people because of the sex or race which violates federal law.

 

I'm sure you were a fair and balanced boss. Not all bosses are.

 

Yes they were, to an extent. The Irish, the Asians, even some Hispanic were enslaved, forced to work for little to no recompense. So why do you feel people who didn't enact them, didn't continue them, the majority don't support them, and they don't exist today, yet discrimination should be continued in a new form? Why do you feel that allowing discriminatory acts is justified? Revenge? Punishment on people who had nothing to do with what happened in the past?

All humans are equal, until they create harm on others. Do you want to be equal, or do you want to create harm on others?

 

Considered by the President or nominated by the President? They are two different things. Why should race or sex even be considered as a factor especially since it violates the CRA to do so?

There are two key AA cases coming to the court this fall, shouldn't the black woman Biden is choosing based on her race and sex recuse herself from any such cases since she will be a direct beneficiary of race based selection?

 

Not every section word for word, but I got the gist of what most of it says...

Have you got a point?

Have you ever read Ball Four?

 

You are equating political affiliation with race and sex now? How desperate can you get?

 

Yea that "there shall be no religious test" thingy, you missed that part?

You did not read and study the Constitution in school? Never had the gumption to do so on your own?

No, not a MLB fan, but will be happy to read you explain what that book has to do with the issue here.

 

Oh what evidence to you convict him of rape or claim his drinking is a problem? There was NONE presented at the hearings.

 

Sure, we studied parts of it, but that didn't mean we read the entire Constitution.... That's a pretty high bar

Please to show me in the constitution that a POTUS cannot consider a Muslim for the SCOTUS... since there shall be no religious test...

 

And KBJ should be asked if she will recuse herself from any cases concerning Trump and Jan 6 or the other investigations as she has a conflict of interest.

 

Fair point... I'm not sure I'd call it a conflict of interest, but she has history.

Her obvious and legally correct answer will be that she will consider recusal on a case by case basis, not on a global basis around some VERY large topics......

Of course, if anything around Don McGahn comes up, I'm sure she'll recuse...



KBJ!! I hope I started that...

 

Really, your school did not teach the entire Constitution in your civics classes especially such KEY and unique aspects of it? Please frame your question as to what I asked and what is being proposed. Considering someone who HAPPENS to be this religion or that religion or none at all is far different from considering someone BECAUSE they are Muslim and the person to be nominate HAS TO BE Muslim or of a religious faith at all. Same with race and gender.

 

LOL.. I didn't say anybody would be dumb enough to say they are considering somebody because they are Muslim... I just wondered how the right would feel if everybody on the A list was Muslim..... completely by accident, of course...

 

Judges routinely recuse themselves if they made lower court rulings on a matter and if they have made disparaging statements about a defendant whose case is now before them which she has.

So she should be asked to give her intentions if such a case comes before her concerning Trump or affirmative action, race or gender based selections.

 

Biden was dumb enough to say he would choose a SCOTUS justice based on the sex and color...............

 

Sorry, no. I'm not going to 'drop' my opposition to this racist/sexist practice simply because it doesn't always get prevented. This President is effectively hiring a SC Justice and is flat out excluding people from consideration based on race and gender. It is illegal and there is no way to spin it.

Oh and you can bet your ass that it will encourage others to do the same, adjusting the identities to suit their bias, so not only are you supporting this singular racist/sexist act but you're playing a small part in enabling countless incidents to follow. Why, I bet its already happened. I bet somewhere in America someone has already made the decision to only consider White male applicants because they figure 'well if the President can do it so can I'.

 

There is great difficulty in constructing a needed strawman with wet straw. Better fortune on the next endeavor.

 

The last part just isn't going to happen...

But please explain the bold... what statement, what defendant, and what case NOW?

 

Which fails your religious test thingy argumenty....

 

Trump clearly stating he will fulfil campaign promises re. SCOTUS and also that he will appoint a female to the bench:

 

Is that a yes or a no

You are equating political affiliation with race and sex now? How desperate can you get?

 

How so? I don't think there should be a test for religion OR sex OR color, neither does the Constitution and the CRA. What do you think?