Stephen Breyer to Retire From Supreme Court After 27 Years

I imagine a white guy could be in the mix next time under a D president.... although when Thomas goes, there will be talk about replacing with equivalent (although somebody who doesn't go out of his way to put his own race down time after time)

Although this thread has been more entertainment that you could have ever imagined... watching the faux outrage and tap dancing about when Reagan did it is priceless...

 

I already know the requirements. I learned them in the 8th grade. I just don't get the opinion that it's literally impossible for a black woman to be qualified.

Are there qualifications to be a Justice? Do you have to be a lawyer or attend law school to be a Supreme Court Justice?

The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate, but all Justices have been trained in the law. Many of the 18th and 19th century Justices studied law under a mentor because there were few law schools in the country.

 

Then why are you worried we are going to run out of white presence on SCOTUS?

 

I don't understand that opinion either. Good thing the only person who has expressed it here is you then, eh?

As stated the qualification they be a lawyer is set by the senate only, not the constitution. But the requirement for senate approval in their sole discretion is indeed in the constitution so one equates to the other.
Being a lawyer does not mean being a law school graduate. Someone 'trained in the law' would be a lawyer, you didn't practice at any time without approval of the state supreme court. Going to school wasn't always a requirement and in some states you can still learn by training and testing out. Since going to school became a common requirement to sit for the bar exam and the bar exam became a requirement to be approved for practise of law by the majority of state supreme courts, no senate has approved a non-lawyer. Some that were not then currently practising, but all had been practising at one time.
Spelling is correct.

 

Let me ask you this. Do you think it was perfectly fine that Trump's advisory panel on women's health had no women on it?

 

Let me ask you this: Is an executive branch advisory panel, which helps to set executive policy and lobby the legislature to set legislative policy, part of the judicial branch?
Jurisprudence is about analyzing the facts of the case, and applying the law that exists. Not what you might think would work better, or might want to be put in to place: What is already there.
At the SCOTUS level: You're analyzing very limited questions and interpreting the constitution based upon primary and secondary sources. You do not use your demographic category "well when I was a young boy in bulgaria" (credit if you can notice the reference) to inform constitutional interpretation. Nothing about YOU or your personal experience needs to come in to, or is useful to, constitutional interpretation.

What constitutional provisions control here? What do those sentences say? Historically how have we treated these provisions interacting with facts like this? Therefore the law is X and on those facts Y is the result demanded.

None of that involves "as a wise *insert demographic category here*". Absolutely none of it involves your genitalia, which genitalia you prefer in your mouth as foreplay for sexual congress, your immutable phenotypical characteristics, or your lineage. Literally none of that matters.

Having said that, I'll answer your question: As an advisor to a policy setting branch of the government, where personal experience can inform what new laws you'd like put in or old laws you'd like changed? No that wasn't ok.

But we're not talking about an advisor to a policy setting branch of the government. We're talking about the referees whose job it is to say over the line based on the rules as written, change the rules if you want that. They don't set policy, they don't wish for what they want. They analyze what is actually there in the law, apply the facts to it, and give you the result. There is no proper place for "well its tough out there to be a *insert demographic quality here* and I understand that as a person from that group so I'm going to change the law" policy making in the judicial branch.

 

What you say is true in theory, but it never works that way. Reagan saw a missing piece in SCOTUS and declared he would put a woman on SCOTUS. Nobody got their panties in a bunch over it.

 

Libertarian here: Reagan Mind Tricks don't work on me. Reagan was a senile old bastard who 1) negotiated with terrorists; 2) ran cocaine while keeping it illegal and increasing penalties as well as creating a disparate sentencing category based on rock vs powder; 3) banned firearms carry in California as governor; 4) allowed to pass gun control at the federal level that arbitrarily barred all new machine guns past May 16, 1986; 5) a whole bunch of other **** I don't have the time or inclination to go in to at the moment.
They SHOULD have gotten their panties in a twist over the idea that he was choosing based on race. If he thought Thomas was the best jurist for the time, he should've picked him and said that and left it at that.
As here: Thomas has had to fight an unfair presumption as to his ultimate qualification just as Judge Jackson Brown will have to if she is approved.

 

Well, I can think of one person who probably got her panties in a bunch over that decision....

 

I trend Libertarian as well.

I, not a fan of Reagan, either. I think our last good president was Eisenhower.

Having people in important positions from a variety of demographics makes the general population feel more included. This isn’t rocket science.

I think most white people who don’t think it matters would have a different opinion if it was 9 black female Baptists on the court.

 

She isn't. Check her record. Her decisions have been slapped down unanimously by her own people for being egregiously beyond legal mandate. Shes an extremist activist. How do you think her name ended up on Brandon's list? (Spoiler: Far-left Marxist progressive dark money groups put it there.)

 

Her own people?

 

US Court of Appeals., D.C. Circuit. Fellow judges, and several fellow Democrats including many far-left progressives of which she is one herself.

 

How many seconds of in-depth Google research have you done on the topic?

 

I'm guessing Milli...

 

Retired conservative judge says Republicans should vote for Biden's Supreme Court nominee 'out of political calculation' if they can't do so 'out of political magnanimity'


In a statement to CNN, Judge J. Michael Luttig, a high-profile conservative legal figure, emphatically praised Jackson, saying she's "eminently qualified" to serve on the nation's highest court.

"Indeed, she is as highly credentialed and experienced in the law as any nominee in history, having graduated from the Harvard Law School with honors, clerked at the Supreme Court, and served as a Federal Judge for almost a decade," Luttig said.

 

I'm merely asking for clarification from those who are worried about race and sex.

 

Yes nothing particularly outstanding compared to others quite the vanilla flavored for leftist Justices. Too bad another Harvard Ivy League school from the same DC Circuit instead of someone from the other 99% of the country. It's her judicial philosophy that should be opposed she does not stand for the laws as passed or the Constitution as it stands.

 

Why would a highly respected judge from the right sing such high praise? Some are comparing her style with that of Breyer's.

I don't think I understand your point on the Harvard thing, though. (I mean, I agree with you, 100%,) but, you are championing the idea that diversity on the court is silly.

 

Ask him I don't speak for him. Diversity of education and experience not what color you born or what sex you were born.

 

You don’t think a black woman would have had different world experiences than a white man?

 

This is not the purpose of the Court. The populace feeling included by choosing nominees based upon irrelevant to the job qualities, particularly immutable racial or gender traits that are no fault or triumph of their own, is not relevant to choosing the best jurist for the job.
Period.
Thank you for at least being honest about what you think you're getting: Nothing but feels.

 

Affirmative Action is needed to oppose and correct racism. Denying that would be racist.

 

No one is even remotely suggesting that. Such a straw-man argument. Just because someone objects to Joe's racism doesn't make them racist.

 

No it doesn't. I know someone who was denied entrance to a University because they were NOT black, yet their friend whose test scores were marginal at best (over 300 points lower than the white person) was invited to attend because they were black. That is systematic racism and not affirmative action. These two people came from the same community and both families were middle to upper middle class.

And to agree with what you said, Biden's choices for his VP and his SC nomination are simply the result of Affirmative Action.

The sooner we stop asking people to put your race or ethnicity on applications, the sooner racism goes away. Liberals will never let that happen.