Stephen Breyer to Retire From Supreme Court After 27 Years

Evidence isn’t proof. Her testimony would be evidence, but it isn’t proof.

Edit: I’ll change that to evidence isn’t always proof. There can be evidence that is proof, but all evidence isn’t proof.

 

"The Buck Stop's At The Guy Over There" -> The Trump Moto.

 

Which was done because Republicans were refusing to fill massive vacancies.

Obama was a two term president twice elected by the people
trump was a one term impeached president never elected by the people
Biden was elected by the people

And out of that you believe the Democrats should be blocked and the Republicans should be able to ram through whoever they want…

It is sad you have independent in your signature but it fits with the rest of the republicans lying in theirs.

 

FOX is in full panic mode screeching about Biden possibly picking a black person to fill the spot. They say it would be discrimination against whites.

 

You don’t have to support them — support of the USSC has fallen to its lowest levels after what Republicans have pulled.

 

Sort of like the "interesting strategy" of putting an Unqualified 43-Year-Old Sexual Predator like Clarence Thomas on the Court in 1991.
Whose only "qualification" was the Color of his skin.
That is why it is so laughable when the RW talks about picks being made based on Sex and Race.
(In this case, the possible selection of Black Woman).

In 1991, there were Thousands of Judges and Lawyers more qualified and more deserving than Clarence Thomas for the Court.
But, since he was replacing Judge Marshall, it was imperative that Bush appoint a Black Judge to replace him.
Lest the court be "All White".
Thomas was practically nominated by default.
Since, Conservative Black Federal Court Justices were practically non-existent.
Is anybody actually attempting to argue that Thomas was the most qualified Conservative Jurist for that seat in 1991?
He was clearly nominated on Race alone.
So, the next time the RW starts up with that "checks off boxes" BS...
Just remember Clarence (Long .... Silver) Thomas.

 

Yeah, her last performance was one for the ages.

 

And how are any of those Justices 'extremist reactionaries'? Demonstrate for us.

 

If the Senate had given way to political pressure from the outside, and slanderous rumors then 1/6 would have had a different ending. It was already bad enough to have given CBD a hearing, where about 90% of us will almost never be able to admire the great halls of the Senate. The floor of our political body exists solely and wholly for those who are elected to the body, period.

And as such, the outside noise meant little to me and his confirmation proceeded as it should have. But on a more pressing note is that the Court is simply an unviable engine to use to settle disputes and frankly, it should've never been created if it would become what it became.

 

What promise? To fulfill a quota? My God, how insulting could that possibly be, to know you were selected for something based on a physical characteristic.

And what does Trump have to do with this discussion? We are discussing Biden, and his possible choices.

 

The two parts in bold share a common theme; bad judges. Reid went nuclear because Dems couldn't push radical activist judges fast enough in efforts to copy/paste the 9th Circus style of adjudication upon the entire nation. Republicans weren't "refusing to fill vacancies" they were refusing to give bad judges more power. And no I don't think Republicans "should be able to ram through whoever they want" because if that included the sort of bad judges Democrats are historically prone to advancing I'd be opposed to it.

If Democrats picked good judges, people that could work within the confines of Constitutional law as opposed to acting as mini-dictators for the progressive cause, then you wouldn't see anywhere near the degree of opposition from Republicans as we have in recent years. My proof: The history of SCOTUS confirmations. Prior to the left being consumed by Marxist cancer they not only nominated good judges from their own camp but didn't try to block good judges from outside of their camp. Sadly we just don't live in those times anymore and its crystal clear what is to blame: radical far-left Marxist progressive cancer.

 

If as part of his reasoning he says "Not going to appoint a white one, no matter what" which is what announcing a quota of only black females need apply would be, yes he would be engaging in discrimination.

 

You mean nominating people based on merit rather than sex or race? Justices who care more for the constitution than activism? Justices who care for the original intent of the constitution and all amendments?

The racist squad members are all calling for a black woman. Automatically taking all other races off of the list not by merit but by race. Yeah, that’s the kind of people we need. People who exclude based on race.

 

That would be a fine argument if it didn't hold hypocricy. Trump nominated someone in an election year - the seat was not held open to see who would be POTUS later that year. And please don't suggest that there is a difference between the end of 8 years and 4.

As for the Dems nuking the filibuster - I won't dispute that. It has been done by both sides. So its hard to take anyone on either side getting their panties in a bunch seriously when it is attempted.

 

Barack Obama for SCOTUS !

 

To break a glass ceiling.... there's no quota's on the SCOTUS...

Better to be selected for that characteristic than ignored for the same....

 

The larger theme isn't so much the year an election takes place but the mindset of the nation. Radical progressive Marxist style far-left ideology isn't functional or sustainable and wont be around much longer - nor should it hence why its important not to allow a SCOTUS Justice to be sat from this camp.

 

If you want to get an Obama, still meet Bidens promise about a black woman, AND meet @The Mello Guy 's request for youth.... I give you:

https://www.biography.com/personality/sasha-obama

 

Oprah? Sounds about right. I am sure Biden doesn't know the difference between the Supreme Court and Judge Judy.

 

Yes because skin color and genitalia are the only qualifications to be a Justice.

 

Appoint Ted Cruz.

 

Unfortunately for you, your justification is subjective.

 

Its his prerogative to pick anyone he wants, and up to the Senate to confirm or reject. Of course he has not selected anyone yet.

 

The existence of conservative justices, is not why the Court has lost all value. To be blunt and quick about it, the court was supposed to be a neutral arbiter. We find that instead, not only is it not an arbiter, but it has the final say on all law and thereby political disputes have been transferred onto the Court, violating our voice as citizens. As the late Scala put it: "9 justices in a robe"

It's simply unacceptable, and now the court's dissolution is but a matter of time and public opinion to swing that way.

 

This is where Leftists / Democrats put skin color, sex, racial make up, sexuality above competence, experience, and merit. I expect another train wreck like Sotomayor.