Stephen Breyer to Retire From Supreme Court After 27 Years

Do you have a problem if private business hire based on race and sex? How about if he had a diverse list and not said anything about race and sex and selected the best possible person off the list?

Now try actually answering what I asked

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?

 

Why does it depend on an election, Justices aren't elected they are appointed try again

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?

 

So it IS ok to hire and appoint people based on their race and sex now?

What does the color of ones skin or what is between their legs have to do with their capability to do the job?

 

You seem to be skipping over my point - that SCOTUS was not an accurate representation of our society today. That is what Biden was shooting for - a more representational SCOTUS. In order to do that, his pool of candidates fell into the category missing from the court. And, again, if he had not found a qualified candidate in that pool but chose one anyway, I would be firmly on your side. But he did find one - one of the best qualified for the position ever. Its a win all around.

A white male can be nominated any time in the future. I would have been okay with one this time around but I'm glad that Biden chose to look at the previously overlooked pool of talent.

 

Built on the backs of people who were either enslaved or indentured. Even in the north, factory workers were pain in company dollars that could only be spent in the company store.

My husband is a white male; not oppressed and not subjugated. He's actually in the peak of his career. He reports to a (wut?) white man, too. I've reported to people of different genders and color. It went fine, no matter who.

I have many white male friends. I've asked, not one of them feels oppressed.

I'm pretty tired of hearing that there is literally not one black-female judge who is qualified for SCOTUS.

 

Now? Reagan did it. It was okay then. It's okay, now. I promise.

 

It is always and only okay to hire a supremely qualified candidate. It is also okay to look into previously overlooked pools of candidates.

As for color and gender having anything to do with capability...one or the other would be ridiculous if it was the only reason for them to have the job. Color and gender do not make someone capable - but it does provide representation that reflects our current citizenry.

 

Uhhhh... really??

Who appoints justices and how do they get to be able to do that??

LMAO

My suggestion would be to focus on quality over quantity of posts...

 

"Look like American society"...? When Ketanji is confirmed, then 22% of the Supreme Court will be Black -- but -- the United States population itself is only 14% Black! So, using the 'woke' Left's own dogma about inclusiveness ratios, how the hell is something like THAT fair!

 

And I call bs on your point. There is already a black person on the scotus. Putting ANOTHER black person on the scotus would make black people OVER represented.

If you ACTUALLY cared about diversity like y’all are claiming, why don’t you put an Indian or an Asian on the scotus? They’ve NEVER been represented. But see you’re not actually going for diversity or... how did you put it... a more representational SCOTUS. You’re pandering to the black community.

And in doing so you’re putting a woman with essentially NO record on important matters, who from all accounts is essentially a social justice warrior in robes. She is WHOLLY unqualified for the position and has almost zero record to go by. For ****s sake she could be some sort of hyper partisan radical who despises whites people. Moreover shes had MULTIPLES of cases overturned by higher courts.

She has ABSOLUTELY no business on the scotus. At least not yet.

 

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?

 

It is why Johnson was picked. What difference to the LAW and the CONSTITUTION does the person's skin color and type of genitals make?

 

He shouldn't and O'Conner being the first woman gave some distinction. We have also had the first black.

Now it's combinations and mixes and matches. Is there a list of all the combinations we must go through before we can forget about race and sex and just pick the best person.

 

We just added three new white people. Are you saying we should only ever have one black person?

 

Black people represent 13% of the total population. Why should they represent 23% of the SCOTUS?

 

Jews represent 2% of the country. Why should they represent 22% of SCOTUS.
Catholics represent 20% of the country. Why should they represent 77% of SCOTUS?

88% of the judges went to Harvard or Yale. Do you think 88% of Americans went to Harvard or Yale?

The court needs diversity in every way imaginable.

 

LOL... good... you are finally moving on from that other ridiculous argument about elections having nothing to do with what SCOTUS appointments are made... that one had me a bit worried about you.

Continue thread spamming with above...

 

Sounds like a case for expansion (or at least retroactive term limits) if I've ever heard one...

 

The Court needs the best jurists in the nation able to be put forward for nomination at the time of a vacancy.
Period.
It doesn't need a person of a particular race or creed, it doesn't need a person of a particular gender or sexual orientation etc. It needs the persons with the best records as jurists, who express judicial philosophies inline with strictly abiding by the constitution as it is written.
If the best jurist is a purple non-binary transsexual, then that's the best jurist and that should be the nominee.
If the best jurist is a straight white man, same.
If the best jurist happens to have a harvard law degree, same.
If the best jurist happens to have gone to Thurgood Marshall School of Law, then same.
Etc.
Its not supposed to be a representative sample of the nation's overall population. Its supposed to be nine of the best jurists available in their year of nomination, appointed for life with good behavior so they're not running for ****ing office and making political decisions.

 

Manchin says no. Next.

 

Yeah, why would he do that? She was fine for Appeals last June....

Joe is probably safely on board with this one, not that this will save his reputation in Washington as a staunch obstructionist...

 

I think it is ridiculously silly to suggest that only Catholics and Jews are the most qualified for the bench. Would you agree with that?

At any given time, there are probably at least 1,000 equally qualified candidates. Some are Baptist, some atheist, some went to University of Virginia.

So, why do we have no issue with the entire court being from two schools and two religions, but we have an issue if, ZOMG! a second black person gets on the court?

The attitude that only Catholic & Jewish white people from Harvard and Yale are qualified to be on the bench is utterly deranged.

 

No on expanding the USSC, Sinema also, I suspect 20 Democrats wouldn't support it. McConnell's a fine gentleman, maybe you could run that by him after the 2022 elections, maybe he'll consider it then.

 

Give it a Google, see where Manchin and Sinema stand on expanding the Court. It's old news.

 

Because, 1 Justice only equals 11%.
So at 11% they would be Underepresented.
That is why.