Stephen Breyer to Retire From Supreme Court After 27 Years

I don't know if Klobuchar did well enough in the primaries to show she would be a popular choice. She's a woman, so that helps but frankly she didn't even occur to me.

I was thinking if the Biden administration followed through with this, there are two paths they could choose to shore up weaknesses.

First, someone with a good reputation for competence, like a Michael Bloomberg (only not him since he turned into a dud in the Presidential debates).

Or go with an ideological pick that would shore up the activist base, like Bernie Sanders or Stacey Abrams.

 

Too smart.

 

Yes its his prerogative to pick anyone he wants, and if he wants someone based off of their race, or doesn't want someone based off of their race, he would be engaging in racial discrimination.
See how that works?

 

Because the Democrat Party is the party of racism, and has always been since its inception in 1828. There is a reason why their own party website omits roughly the first CENTURY (100 years) of their own history (and lies about most of the rest of it).

https://democrats.org/who-we-are/our-history/

 

That would actually be a popular choice among Democrats. He would have to identify as female in order to keep Biden's promise, but at this point in history, that's merely a technicality.

 

1) Ketanji Brown Jackson
2) Kendra Kruger
3) Michelle Childs
4) Sherrilyn Ifill
5) Leslie Gardner Abrams: sister of Stacey Abrams

Those are the 5 choices for Justice Stephen Beyer's soon to be vacated seat.
One of these will be the first African-American lady on the Supreme Court.

 

I think you've singled out a major difference in judicial philosophies between left and right. The left wants results based on the outcome they want, regardless of the constitution and law, and the right wants the constitution and the law to be upheld, regardless of the outcome.

 

Ha Ha!

You're not watching Fox!

 

It doesn't work like that, because he can select whoever he wants, and people can whine (they already are) about racism and discrimination, but its still his choice.

 

No, but I saw their comments in the net.

 

Kendra? Nickname?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leondra_Kruger

Oooooo... the sister of Stacey Abrams?? That should set some GOP gray heads on fire... She now almost becomes my house favorite...

 

The net? Heh, OK.

 

If his choice is motivated by "I want a person of this race" or "I don't want a person of that race" then his choice is made based on racial discrimination.

If I say "I won't hire a black person for this position": I am engaging in racial discrimination. If I say "I will only hire a black person for this position": I am engaging in racial discrimination.

 

I hear Ketanji Brown Jackson and Leondra Kruger have the best chances to be chosen.

 

None deserving.

 

What was George Herbert Walker Bush's motivation when he nominated Judge Clarence Thomas?

 

Then none of the current Justices are deserving either.

 

I don't know anything about the final 3, but the first 2 are blaringly qualified..... As you will find out when you do all the research I'm expecting out of you when the nomination is made...

/s

 

If it was "I'll only pick a black man"? Racially discriminatory.

I don't know why you ****ing partisans always pull this same asinine bullshit.

D or R: You can both be pieces of ****.

 

I recall reading about when LBJ nominated Thurgood Marshall to the Supreme Court. There were LOTS of people who didn't like it. LBJ knew that when he nominated him, of course.

 

Merit? You mean how Republicans do it by selecting jurists that have been preselected for them by conservative foundations? By merit you mean “vote how we want” which is even more dangerous than selecting people with diverse views.

 

No. Clarence Thomis is hated by moral people because he's possibly the most corrupt justice to ever sit on the court. We hate the corrupt. Liberals are consistent that way. Such a though process is utterly alien to conservatives.

Examples?

Thomas was the only justice to vote to allow Trump to keep his 1/6 records hidden. Even Trump's own picks wouldn't stoop that low. Most people are thinking the involvment of Ginny Thomas in the insurrection was the driving factor there.

John Eastman, the best pal of Clarence Thomas, was hip-deep in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

It's not just the politics. He rules in cases that financially involve his wife. Needless to say, he always rules in the way that enriches his wife. For example, Ginny Thomas made millions lobbying against the ACA. Clarence Thomas rules on the ACA. That's a massive and obvious conflict of interest. The lobbyists paying Ginny Thomas know that what they're paying for is the SC vote of Clarence Thomas.

Now, would anyone like to claim with a straight face that they wouldn't have a problem if a liberal justice had a spouse lobbyist collecting millions to lobby on topics that the SC rules on?

Needless to say, we have no problems with Republicans grilling Biden's upcoming nominee. Honest people don't need to worry about such things. Innocent people don't need to worry about such things. Only the dishonest and the guilty need to worry about such things.

 

*facepalm*

Physical characteristics shouldn't be a factor, period. Your comment on picked/ignored is a good example of why some groups claim they want to be treated equally, yet have no problem declaring they need special treatment for their differences.

Hopefully, someday, people will stop seeing other people through a myopic lens.

 

None of them ended up on a list because of their skin color or genitals.

Qualifications? Their names ended up on that list because they're black and have a vaj. Also when the list of reasons not to confirm them comes out (such as at least 2 of them being black identity radicals) you wont want to talk about qualifications anymore, oh no, things will circle back around to where they started: race.

 

Thank you!