Stephen Breyer to Retire From Supreme Court After 27 Years

You REALLY need to learn how to use that Google technology....

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2022-02-01/biden-reagan-supreme-court-politics

Are you hitting the Enter key after typing in your search criteria??.... The machine needs something to tell it to initiate the search.....

I find that's the best way to return results...

 

You should know 3, if recent history is any indication...

 

An opinion piece written this year, about a nominee from 40 years ago, based on an alleged quote pointing to a source which doesn't actually contain it, that also oh so conveniently -and also erroneously- re-frames Reagan's position to parallel Brandon's when in fact the two aren't the same at all. This is the sort of slacker effort that passes for journalism these days because the people that write this crap know damned well that a) their readers aren't reading past the headlines and b) their readers don't know American history.

I can tell you felt a little proud just then flexing your 'searching skills' but I am going to have to rain on your parade. You see Reagan didn't explicitly promise to consider only 1 gender and/or 1 race. He simply campaigned on the notion that its time women be included in consideration. This is a night and day difference to what Brandon did which was to not only flat out state his intentions to exclude multiple races and 1 of 2 genders in the campaign process, but then to actually proceed to do just that once in office. Here's some fun documentation to help demonstrate the difference.

A archived White House memo from the era -- note the mixture of male and females.
Short List of Candidates for Supreme Court [1981]
https://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/historical/60/

A New York Times article from the era -- note the distinction between including women and only including women.
https://www.nytimes.com/1981/07/01/...rt-list-of-candidates-for-court-is-ready.html
"White House officials are placing a strong emphasis on using the vacancy left by Justice Stewart to fulfill Mr. Reagan's campaign pledge to name a woman to the court at some point. But the official said there was ''no guarantee'' that a woman would be chosen. Some Women Are Considered"

 

SNIP
“I heard a couple of people say they thought it was inappropriate for the president to announce he was going to put an African American woman on the court. Honestly, I did not think that was inappropriate,” the Kentucky Republican said during a Lexington Commerce event in Kentucky.

“President Reagan promised to put a woman on the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O'Connor. President Trump promised to put a woman on the Supreme Court when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, so I'm not complaining about that."
ENDSNIP

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...idens-announcement-to-nominate-black-woman-to

If Moscow/Cocaine Mitch can buy into this, why the hell can't you?? (Like it matters anyway)

Smart money would be on the race aspect, not the gender aspect...

 

LOL.

Let's play true/false

Ronald Reagan was a president (true)
Ronald Reagan got to appoint judges to SCOTUS (true)
Ronald Reagan declared he would choose a woman (wait for it..... TRUE!)

So, no part of your statement was true, and your google is broken. (Or you lied, and never did do that google search.)

 

You'll have to check post #1004. I was trying to explain to Ego the differences between including women and excluding non-women (and non-blacks). Reagan vowed to include women in consideration for a Justice seat, there's documents and quotes from the era showing this (see post #1004). Brandon on the other hand vowed to exclude non-black women and he did just that. These are very different things; namely one is illegal. I do not understand how progressives are ok with this given their 'woke' nature. A foundational concept of anti-discrimination has been violated at the highest level; Brandon's administration has institutionalized racism and sexism. If the next President proudly declares they will only put White men on the court would we not see a tsunami of outrage?

 

Of course this is true. Brandon is a longstanding racist but he needs progressive support so he did what he was told.

 

Partisans; blech. Sometimes, you know, once in awhile, you are just wrong, admit your hypocrisy and move on. There are plenty more hypocritical opportunities tomorrow, I promise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...e-court/844817dc-27aa-4f5d-8e4f-0ab3a5e76865/

Reagan Pledges He Would Name a Woman to the Supreme Court

In making his announcement that he would name a woman to the high court, Reagan said that "a number of false and misleading statements" had been made about his positions in the campaign.

One of the accusations has been that I am somehow opposed to full and equal opportunities for women in America," Reagan said. "I regret even having to address this issue for fear that discussing it might lend even a scintilla of credence to such a charge."

Reagan then said he opposed "tokenism and false quotas" to correct past injustices. But he added: "I am also acutely aware, however, that within the guidelines of excellence, appointments can carry enormous symbolic significance. This permits us to guide by example -- to show how deep our commitment is and to give meaning to what we profess. One way I intend to live up to that commitment is to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court."

 

Y’all are putting her there BECAUSE of her race (because Kentaji is WHOLLY unqualified for the position)... why do you think it’s unacceptable for people to not want her there because of her race? You’re both racists lol

They’re being racist to blacks and you’re being racist to non-blacks. Wtf is the difference?

 

Both Reagan's actions and Biden's actions of tokenism were driven by the left. Biden's actions include the quota fill too, also fully driven by the left.

 

Great find by you and actually a great quote from Reagan.... obviously before he lost his mind...

Biden could have said the exact same thing, just adding the word black before woman, and it works today.

I agree with your first 2 words as well, except I'd add the word blind before partisanship...

 

Me? How’s that? You think my dislike of Trump makes me automatically a lefty? I have done nothing to impact who Biden puts on the SCOTUS

Partisans; Blech

 

Is there a list someone of all the combinations of race and sex we have to go through before we can finally saying judging people first by the race and sex no longer has to happen and we don't have to consider anymore? How long before another white male can be appointed?

 

I suppose that depends on future elections, doesn't it? Somebody from the GQP gets in and it'll look like an Ikea ad...

But I imagine the next candidate might be preannounced as gay....so Ted Cruz counts twice..

 

I suppose it would have been better if Biden said he was going to do his first level of searching in a pool of Black women. If he hadn't found anyone qualified, he could move on. I suppose that might have appeased people more.

The reality is that he chose to look in a different direction than anyone else ever has - and he found a profoundly qualified candidate. Do you have a problem with anyone simply looking in a different direction?

We should all be happy with this - that we get a well qualified individual seated on the bench.

 

I wont, because I'm not. I expect Ego to be bogged down in proggie subtext with all its nuance of a 3rd grader's essay on 'why I love pokemon'. You, on the other hand, I really did expect to instantly notice the difference between including women for consideration and excluding non-women (non-black women in Joe's case) from it.

And then of course there's the technical specificity. A once uttered focus-tested sentence coming end-of-race, aka campaigning, and actually making it a matter of official government business - again, two distinctly different things. One can say 'I'm going to hire black people', for example, and that's fine. But one cannot have an official, clearly documented policy that clearly illustrates a design to blatantly exclude non-blacks. That would most clearly violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Had Brandon's administration been vetting a variety of candidates I would not be here making this point. But we know for a fact that Brandon's short list exclusively contained black women because of a formal policy to only consider black women.

There is no way to claim this isn't both racist and illegal and all we have to do to prove it is wait for a Republican to become President again and do the exact thing in reverse. Then every leftist will be making the exact same argument I'm making albeit with a few identity tweaks.

 

Some of you won’t be happy until every position more important than administrative assistant is filled with a straight Christian white male. Gues# what? We tried that for hundreds of years.

You pretend people on your team didn’t say almost exactly what you are chastising a person on their team said. You just outright deny a quote from their mouth came from their mouth.

Partisans; Blech.

 

Profoundly qualified?? On what grounds?

 

And some of you won’t be happy until white males are subjugated and oppressed.

BTW those white Christian males built and sustained the greatest nation on earth. Here let’s try this another way, which country on earth that wasn’t founded and sustained by white males do you think is a better example of what a country should be and would be a better place to live? Don’t worry. I’ll wait.

I ESPECIALLY would love to know which country, created, ran and sustained by black people you think is a better example of what we should be.

 

This is who you sound like btw.
https://youtube.com/shorts/t5biv19hvns?feature=share

And you’ll run into the EXACT same problem she did. White people are responsible for creating and running the greatest civilizations this world has ever seen. WHITES ended slavery. whites gave women the right to vote. And all people like you can do is complain about it and suggest blacks would do it better. Except in the ENTIRE HISTORY of mankind blacks have NEVER done it better before. So what in the actual **** makes you think they would do better now?

 

Because YOU brought it up and made a vacuous issue of it, what has been the result of Western civilization being driven almost entirely by "straight Christian white male" leadership? Only ALL the great advancements in human development, our knowledge and our standard of living, beginning with the Renaissance and so on right up to the present day....

But let me guess -- your faction would prefer to go back to living in primitive villages, with an average life-span of less than forty years, subjected to constant warfare inflicted on constantly warring, bestial societies run by tribal chieftains...?

If so, consider migrating to some appropriate remaining 'garden-spot'...

. "Welcome back to the 'inclusive' Paradise, white boy...."

 

Reagan's announcement of a woman as a choice was met with no objections. But now, Biden's announcement of a woman as his choice is met with outrage.
What's the difference? . . . . . Race.

And some say there's no systemic racism.

 

So... your point is that Reagan was a racist because he didn't appoint a female who was Black...? Or what...? .

 

Imagine that - a Republican nominating a white man for SCOTUS!!! The only 'new' thing about that would be his/her announcing that's the parameters.

Our citizenry comes in all genders, shapes, colors - Biden acknowledged that fact. And what could be more democratic that making SCOTUS look more like American society?

If his pick was not qualified, I would be firmly with you in opposition. But to suggest that there wouldn't be highly qualified applicants to choose from in the female and Black category is ridiculous.

 

One would have to be ignorant to not understand the difference 40 years makes. Does racism exist? For sure. And to simplify this, all flavors have racism. You only have to listen to people and understand their hatred for people different from them. To burn down cities and scream for defunding police is hatred and racism at its finest.

To choose a President, Vice President, or to make an appointment to the Supreme Court based on the color of a person's skin is racism.