Stephen Breyer to Retire From Supreme Court After 27 Years

Looks like she committed what Republicans now consider "blasphemy"

 

Not getting your point. So what if she's a black female? Did you even HAVE a point?

 

He had already chosen and it happened to be a woman, he was just giving a hint on the upcoming announcement. The same shallow claims attempting to mitigate what Biden did are being made about Reagan too

From the distinguish Prof. Jonathan Turley

Biden's Supreme Court pledge is not Reagan's nor Trump's—it's unfair
The Reagan example shows why Biden's pledge was both unprecedented and unnecessary

.....On Oct. 15, 1980, Reagan declared that "I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find. … It is time for a woman to sit among the highest jurists."


Notably, it was Jimmy Carter who pounced on that pledge as creating a threshold gender criteria. Others noted at the time that Reagan was simply pledging that he would select a woman in "one of the first Supreme Court vacancies" rather than the first vacancy. Indeed, when a vacancy did arise, aides told the media that there was "no guarantee" that he would select a woman.


Reagan never pledged to only consider women and in fact considered non-female candidates. One of the leading contenders was considered Judge Lawrence Pierce, an African American trial court judge. Newsweek and other media sites listed an array of males being actively considered including Robert Bork, Dallin H. Oaks, Malcolm R. Wilkey, Philip B. Kurland, and Edwin Meese III.

.....Commentators have also claimed that Donald Trump made the same pledge. After Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, Trump announced that "I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman." However, he had already publicly released three lists of possible nominees of different races and genders. His staff had been working on vetting those on the list. However, the final short list included not just Barrett (who received the nomination) but a majority of male jurists....

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-supreme-court-reagan-trump-jonathan-turley

 

If it doesn't matter if his nominee is black and female then why is he discriminating against anyone who is not black and female? What is HIS point?

 

If stating "Presidents are not Kings" or that WH employees work take an oath to the Constitution and not a single man, is considered anything other than common sense fact by anybody...... well, I can't even finish that sentence from disgust....

 

Many other videos proving what I bolded to be your inaccurate assessment. Please do your research and google & watch the videos. Thanks.

In addition, did he not also promise to appoint ONLY judges that were pro-life as well during the 2016 campaign?

I do tire of posts that are disingenuous and always filled with desperate obfuscating, my suggestion is to give it a rest.

 

So what if he's discriminating against anyone who is not black and female? He's also discriminating against anyone who is not an attorney. Which I personally think is a mistake (just my opinion). And, hopefully, also discriminating against anybody who is not qualified to be Justice of the Supreme Court. Did YOU have a point?

 

Check the CRA out.

Is that covered in the CRA?

Is that covered in the CRA? Do you have a point conflating sex and race with qualifications? Does a persons sex and race qualify them?

 

What does the Canadian Revenue Agency have to do with any of this?

BTW, you are completely clueless about Civil Rights. As any right winger is most likely to be. I wouldn't go there with no research if I were you.

 

I did my research which refutes what is being claimed, try reading and responding to it.

".....Commentators have also claimed that Donald Trump made the same pledge. After Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, Trump announced that "I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman." However, he had already publicly released three lists of possible nominees of different races and genders. His staff had been working on vetting those on the list. However, the final short list included not just Barrett (who received the nomination) but a majority of male jurists...."

As I said he wasn't stating he was limiting the his consideration to JUST females, he was stating he had chosen from his list of considerations and giving a hint.

That is NOT race and sex, why do you conflate them?

I do tire of post that are disingenuous and make false claims about obfuscating, not only did I directly address the issue but actually posted something to back it up, when their arguments lack any merit, my suggestion is to give it a rest.

 

Why would you think it does in a discussion of discrimination in the United States. But then you don't really and are once again obfuscating.

 

In bolded, the above statement lacks credibility as any real research one would do would prove the bolded statement FALSE. Sorry, the rest of the quoted post is really bad obfuscation of facts and truth so I'll just ignore it since it's predicated on a disingenuous 'argument'.

 

I must say, Golem, that for someone who has a famous American physicist for his avatar, you seem at times remarkably opaque. You opined that you hoped that Geriatric Joe's pick wouldn't be a lawyer (although we both surely know that it will be), and I consoled you by reminding you that, according to Joe, his pick "will be a BLACK, FEMALE attorney." It was rather obvious, wasn't it...? And, at least a reflection on that fact should have given you at least some happiness....

. "While doing extensive research, don't forget to notice the OBVIOUS...."-- loosely attributed to Richard Feynman, Ph.D., MIT.

 

It was bad a black man became president.
Now it's bad a black woman could be on the USSC.

And there's no racism in the country?

 

The only "obvious" explanation I can think of for your remark would make it look racist. So there must be another one, I'm sure. Why would her being a "black female" be some sort of "consolation".

 

So you have nothing of merit to refute the facts once again, rants do not. Do you even know what is to obfuscate? You are the one obfuscating here.

 

"Why should their physical characteristics be any point at all?" When that statement actually happens ALL the time, racism would be over. We are far from that. That's why.
As far as "hard to choose" there are hundreds, if not thousands of candidates qualified, this just cuts the pool down.
It's not illegal. The President is allowed to pick who he wants and get approved by the Senate. Look at the "winners" Trump gave us.

 

Women are minorities?

 

If you are going to try and insult my intelligence then do so by providing something to back you insult. What specifically do I not know about Civil Rights, what claim have I made are you specifically refuting

 

Well, they always have been for SCOTUS representation... That's what I was referring to....

But that's changing rapidly...

 

Fun fact: It's in the Constitution that the President can pick whomever he wants. Are you against the Constitution?

 

And when worded like that, irrelevant to what were talking about.

No, it doesn't given the Constitution. If that is true, is the President the one that is "illegal" for his choice or the Senate for the conformation KNOWING the President's intent.

No. Those cases are about affermative action and that's not the case here.

 

I notice you conveniently left out religion....why?

 

No, it's not a fair point. By that logic all the women should recuse themselve from any RvW cases because they have a "conflict of interest". Their bodies.

 

That this discussion has anything to do with the Civil Rights Act. The fact that you think it does is pretty definitive.