Stephen Breyer to Retire From Supreme Court After 27 Years

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Egoboy, Jan 26, 2022.

  1. Jack Hays

    Jack Hays Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2020
    Messages:
    27,379
    Likes Received:
    17,373
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Republicans' best play is to support the nominee unanimously. That would give away nothing not already lost (a liberal SCOTUS seat) and would deny the Democrats a rallying political confrontation.
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  2. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    34,707
    Likes Received:
    21,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah... Sotomayor was "qualified" and she's a disaster and disgrace. He's picking a person by sexuality and race. That's what bigots do.
     
    glitch and Pollycy like this.
  3. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And that was 50+ years ago. That is not today, is it.

    So, are you going to provide anything to support your position that selections NOW should be based on skin color, rather than just qualifications?
     
    glitch likes this.
  4. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Brilliant! Here's the plan:

    1. Kamala resigns as VP (everybody despises her and is even more unpopular than Biden).
    2. Joe's inner-circle installs someone 'acceptable' to be VP, like Amy Klobuchar or Cory Booker (meets the race and/or gender criterion).
    3. Joe quickly nominates Kamala to fill Breyer's SCOTUS position.
    4. In the Senate, the new Democrat VP breaks the tie, and Kamala becomes a Justice!

    Sound plausible?!

    This hypothesis 'touches on all points' as far as Democrats are concerned....
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2022
    James California likes this.
  5. 9royhobbs

    9royhobbs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    Messages:
    14,893
    Likes Received:
    5,402
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think (IMO) that the point being made is that pigmentation and genitalia have/has been a disqualification for a long, long, time. Yes there have been 2 black justices and there have been women but even at that it's been in my lifetime......actually, my children's lifetime. To combine the two is the point. Most qualified? That's the debate coming.
     
  6. HurricaneDitka

    HurricaneDitka Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2020
    Messages:
    7,155
    Likes Received:
    6,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I mean the truth, not any one person's "truth" (which in more rational times we'd call opinions, not "truth")
     
  7. HurricaneDitka

    HurricaneDitka Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2020
    Messages:
    7,155
    Likes Received:
    6,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
  8. bx4

    bx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    15,141
    Likes Received:
    12,518
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are you suggesting there are no black women in America who have the qualities to be on SCOTUS?
     
  9. Get A Job

    Get A Job Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2017
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    273
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don't care if there are 9 black women on the Court. What I do care about is a President announcing if you don't meet his requirement for race and sex you won't even be considered, there's a law against that.
     
    US Conservative, Pollycy and Reality like this.
  10. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    upload_2022-1-27_9-21-18.png
     
  11. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again: I don't know why you ****ing partisans act like this.
    Use your context clues: I'm pointing out racially discriminatory behavior by either dominant political party being wrong. Would it make rational sense to be just fine with gender discrimination?
    Reagan is not a sacred cow, he negotiated with terrorists and provided them arms and participated in a cocaine cartel.
    I don't give a **** about him, and before you or some other partisan gets started: NO I don't ****ing like Bill Clinton either.
     
  12. Pants

    Pants Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2018
    Messages:
    12,820
    Likes Received:
    11,221
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    We look at it very differently. I see Biden as a man looking exclusively at a pool of people who have been excluded from consideration up until now. I see that as a positive thing. There are incredibly well respected and thoroughly qualified women in that pool, and now we will have a SCOTUS that is more representative of the make up of our country. Again, a positive thing.
     
  13. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,604
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Racial and sex discrimination are per se 1) illegal and 2) morally wrong.

    Per se by not looking at the entire pool of qualified applicants, he is not choosing the most qualified person. Artificially limiting competition for a position that requires professional, academic, and intellectual rigor entirely divorced from any physical characteristic by using arbitrary characteristics such as race or gender to limit the pool, does the entire nation a disservice.
    It was such when non whites or women were not considered, and it is such when only non white or women are considered. Its not even "reverse" anything: Its just conventional racism/sexism.

    Its not a positive thing.
     
  14. Kode

    Kode Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    26,310
    Likes Received:
    7,461
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't think my last attempt at this worked, so I try again...

    oh forget it
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2022
  15. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    48,450
    Likes Received:
    32,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is according to a Pollster who does this for a living:

    [​IMG]

    But, obviously, anybody is free to believe what they want.

    And, odds?
    So what?
    Upsets happen all the time in politics.
    It ain't over 'til it's over.

    That said, I will concede that anything is possible.
    The World could End before I hit "Post Reply" on this message.
    Anything is possible.

    I can wait for the votes to be counted.

    That said, if one assumes the the Dems, are going to lose 2 of these 3 (GA, AZ, NV), then I will concede that Senate Prospects (in terms of retaining control) look dim.
     
  16. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    66,099
    Likes Received:
    68,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  17. HurricaneDitka

    HurricaneDitka Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2020
    Messages:
    7,155
    Likes Received:
    6,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You might have a problem with Step #4:

    No hiding behind Pence’s skirt on the Supreme Court nomination - The Boston Globe

     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2022
    glitch likes this.
  18. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    34,707
    Likes Received:
    21,899
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What? How do you get there from my post? That's ridiculous.

    A bigot chooses based on race or sexuality. That does not mean there are qualified candidates that are black women. If a discrimination occurs on grounds that a person cannot control in their life like their race, or their chromosomes it's bigotry. How you don't realize that is troubling.
     
  19. dixon76710

    dixon76710 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,376
    Likes Received:
    4,438
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And wouldnt it be so much more impactful for women and minorities if he instead didnt announce a gender and race of his future nomination and instead just picked a black woman. I guess you gotta collect those SJW points as soon as you can.
     
    Get A Job and Kal'Stang like this.
  20. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,278
    Likes Received:
    22,663
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Well Elena Kagan wasn't a judge before she got on the SC. Nor, for that matter were John Marshall, William Rehnquist, Lewis Powell Jr., Abe Fortas, Earl Warren, William Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, and Louis Brandeis.

    It's not a requirement.

    Requiring the nominee to be a black female is also "political shenanigans" but you seem fine with that. Why don't you want to help out the Biden Administration?
     
    Pollycy likes this.
  21. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,278
    Likes Received:
    22,663
    Trophy Points:
    113

    So Thomas isn't enough of a comedian to clown for you to win you over? That does sound like ""nastiness and resentment."
     
    US Conservative likes this.
  22. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,278
    Likes Received:
    22,663
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good idea except there is a caveat to that. The Democrats have already previously came out as opposed to approving a Supreme Court Justice based on the tie breaking vote of the VP.

    Laurence Tribe, the Democrats go-to Constitutional scholar.

    While the vice president has the power to cast a tiebreaking vote to pass a bill, the Constitution does not give him the power to break ties when it comes to the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” role in approving presidential appointments to the Supreme Court.

    You don’t have to take my word for it. Alexander Hamilton said the same thing way back in 1788, in Federalist No. 69: “In the national government, if the Senate should be divided, no appointment could be made.” Hamilton contrasted that rule with how appointments worked back then in his home state of New York, where the governor actually did have the power to break ties to confirm nominations to New York state offices.

    Consistent with Hamilton’s understanding, as two thoughtful recent scholarly analyses have pointed out, no vice president in our history has ever cast a tiebreaking vote to confirm an appointment to the Supreme Court. If Pence tried to cast the deciding vote to confirm Trump’s nomination to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week at age 87, it would be the first time that has ever happened. That should matter to everyone — it certainly matters (or used to matter) to “originalists,” who emphasize the importance of history when interpreting our Constitution.

    So will they reverse course on their constitutional understanding? Heh heh...
     
  23. Creasy Tvedt

    Creasy Tvedt Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2019
    Messages:
    10,291
    Likes Received:
    13,163
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    glitch and US Conservative like this.
  24. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I see your point, Hurricane, but here's what Alan Dershowitz, Emeritus Professor of Law, Harvard Law School had to say about this issue back in September of 2020, when the issue about Amy Coney Barrett was being hotly debated:
    https://www.newsweek.com/can-vice-president-break-tie-supreme-court-confirmation-opinion-1533563

    In this article, Dershowitz says: "It is clear, therefore, that in voting on proposed statutes, the vice president is authorized to cast a tie-breaking vote. But did the Framers intend the same rule to apply when the president is seeking the advice and consent of senators to a judicial nomination? We can't know for certain, because the Constitution and Federalist Papers focus on the vice president's role in breaking ties over legislation, not confirmation."

    Then Dershowitz states: "... now all that is required to confirm controversial and divisive Supreme Court nominees is a simple majority. ... a tie vote broken by the vice president would weaken even that requirement, encouraging presidents to nominate increasingly divisive justices."

    BUT, Hurricane, Dershowitz does not indicate that should action by a vice president is forbidden in the Constitution -- only that it would be ill-advised, because it would make the country even more divided than it already is. BUT WHEN DOES SOMETHING LIKE THAT STOP EITHER OF THE RULING FACTIONS IN OUR COUNTRY? :lonely:

    Democrats feel that Trump shoved Amy Coney Barrett down the Senate's throat, and Republicans felt that Obama rammed two hyperliberal, highly-prejudiced, über-partisan candidates down our throats -- Sotomayor and Kagan. But, back on point, I see nothing in the Constitution that would forbid (FORBID) a vice president from breaking a tie to make Kamala Harris a Justice on the Supreme Court, and neither, evidently, does Alan Dershowitz. Nevertheless, if Joe's going put Kamala up for the open seat, he'd damn sure better do it before the congressional elections coming in November!
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2022
  25. bx4

    bx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2016
    Messages:
    15,141
    Likes Received:
    12,518
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I disagree with your definition of bigotry.

    If a group has been historically disadvantaged, it isn’t bigotry to recognize that and ensure that they are chosen for roles that were historically denied to them.
     

Share This Page