SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,297
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 26, 2022 12:14:24 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Jan 26, 2022 14:14:46 GMT -5
Cross your fingers on Sinema and Manchin
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,297
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 26, 2022 14:29:40 GMT -5
Cross your fingers on Sinema and Manchin AFAIK, they have voted for every Biden judicial nominee so far. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the DC Circuit has been mentioned as a potential nominee and she was confirmed in July 2021 with 53 votes (IIRC Collins, Murkowski and Graham - and Graham also voted to confirm both Kagan and Sotomayor when he was Chair of Judiciary). She also clerked for Justice Breyer.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Post by TC on Jan 26, 2022 15:16:57 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,297
|
Post by SSHoya on Jan 26, 2022 16:09:17 GMT -5
It still seems likely both will ultimately vote for whoever Biden nominates. Manchin and Sinema have both supported his lower court picks, including one that is high on Biden’s short list for the high court: Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. But their presence could also impact who gets picked in the first place. Biden has already promised he will nominate a Black woman, limiting the field of prospective justices. www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/26/would-joe-manchin-kyrsten-sinema-vote-next-supreme-court-justice/Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a former Judiciary Committee chairman who still sits on the panel, said Wednesday that he expects the 50 members of the Democratic caucus to hang together and confirm Biden’s pick to replace Breyer. “If all Democrats hang together — which I expect they will — they have the power to replace Justice Breyer in 2022 without one Republican vote in support,” Graham said in a statement. “Elections have consequences, and that is most evident when it comes to fulfilling vacancies on the Supreme Court.” Democrats claimed control of the Senate in January after winning a pair of runoff elections in Georgia. The victories by Sens. Jon Ossoff and Raphael G. Warnock divided the chamber evenly between the parties. With Vice President Harris as president of the Senate, the balance of power tipped in favor of Democrats. In Graham’s statement, he said he appreciated Breyer’s service to the nation. SOURCE: The Washington Post, January 26. 2022
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,541
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 28, 2022 7:46:22 GMT -5
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,541
|
Post by DanMcQ on Jan 28, 2022 7:55:00 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,481
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 28, 2022 8:26:18 GMT -5
Judge Brown Jackson, or whomever the President nominates, should be rapidly confirmed, absent legally disqualifying obstacles of which there will surely be none.
The torpedoing of qualified candidates for ideological reasons should be all too familiar to Mr Biden who presided over the hatchet job done to Robert Bork.
It was taken to a new disgusting low by McConnell in the Garland fiasco.
Hopefully, that type of nonsense is a vestige of the past.
|
|
hoya73
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,222
|
Post by hoya73 on Jan 28, 2022 11:36:42 GMT -5
Republicans (some) are already decrying whoever gets nominated as being all about "identity politics". Too few people point out that White males never, and Republican White females rarely, are labeled products of identity politics, even though these, too are identities by definition. I guess CRT would tell us that is because the underlying assumption is that White male folks "deserve" to be seen as rulers, while all other identities must earn it. CRT would be accurate, in that assessment. Ot would understate the situation because for the guys who are already saying this, no person identified as other than White can possibly earn the ruling position, or can only earn it the way Thomas did, by being as reprehensible,personally, as someone like Trump.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,481
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 28, 2022 11:40:13 GMT -5
Republicans (some) are already decrying whoever gets nominated as being all about "identity politics". Too few people point out that White males never, and Republican White females rarely, are labeled products of identity politics, even though these, too are identities by definition. I guess CRT would tell us that is because the underlying assumption is that White male folks "deserve" to be seen as rulers, while all other identities must earn it. CRT would be accurate, in that assessment. Ot would understate the situation because for the guys who are already saying this, no person identified as other than White can possibly earn the ruling position, or can only earn it the way Thomas did, by being as reprehensible,personally, as someone like Trump. Joe Biden is President. He has a vacancy to fill on the Supreme Court. His choice should, in the absence of any disqualifier, be confirmed. The rest is all noise.
|
|
hoya73
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,222
|
Post by hoya73 on Jan 28, 2022 11:48:14 GMT -5
And the noise that comes from Republicans that are already condemning whoever might be nominated as automatically unqualified by identity tells us a lot about that party.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,481
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 28, 2022 11:51:53 GMT -5
And the noise that comes from Republicans that are already condemning whoever might be nominated as automatically unqualified by identity tells us a lot about that party. And anyone who says such things is idiotic. Almost as idiotic as someone who could have just selected a qualified candidate without announcing his or her “identity group” in advance. It seems he was making a calculated political statement and does not like any blowback. I seem to recall he did the same thing in picking his VP.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,633
|
Post by DallasHoya on Jan 28, 2022 12:03:55 GMT -5
And the noise that comes from Republicans that are already condemning whoever might be nominated as automatically unqualified by identity tells us a lot about that party. And anyone who says such things is idiotic. Almost as idiotic as someone who could have just selected a qualified candidate without announcing his or her “identity group” in advance. It seems he was making a calculated political statement and does not like any blowback. I seem to recall he did the same thing in picking his VP. Let’s not forget which President was the first to promise to appoint a justice based on a particular identity group (hint: think Sandra O’Connor).
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,481
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 28, 2022 12:09:20 GMT -5
Wrong then; wrong now.
|
|
guru
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,600
|
Post by guru on Jan 28, 2022 14:28:58 GMT -5
And anyone who says such things is idiotic. Almost as idiotic as someone who could have just selected a qualified candidate without announcing his or her “identity group” in advance. It seems he was making a calculated political statement and does not like any blowback. I seem to recall he did the same thing in picking his VP. Let’s not forget which President was the first to promise to appoint a justice based on a particular identity group (hint: think Sandra O’Connor). Never fails to be a pleasure to watch Elvado step on a few rakes when contorting himself to justify his opinions. So good.
|
|
hoya73
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,222
|
Post by hoya73 on Jan 28, 2022 15:01:06 GMT -5
If Biden has an absolute right to pick a qualified candidate and have that candidate confirmed, why is the over/under for Republican votes to confirm zero? Because very nearly 100% of Republicans are sure to be wrong, according to his statements. Thanks for the validation.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,330
Member is Online
|
Post by SDHoya on Jan 28, 2022 15:27:49 GMT -5
Let’s not forget which President was the first to promise to appoint a justice based on a particular identity group (hint: think Sandra O’Connor). Never fails to be a pleasure to watch Elvado step on a few rakes when contorting himself to justify his opinions. So good. I'm not going to take the time to see if there are any old Elvado posts which contradict what he has here, but at least what is posted in this thread seems pretty consistent. Candidates should not be selected/excluded on the basis race/gender/etc. (something which would likely violate Title VII and plenty of state laws if it was a private employer doing so); and the Senate should confirm qualified candidates, regardless of ideology or party. As I understand his posts, he is criticizing both parties for engaging in this conduct. Biden knew what he was doing when he decided to announce in advance that he would only consider a candidate of a particular race and gender. He knew it would play well to his base and particularly to a constituency he needed to win in the primaries--and he knew that Republicans would use that position against him. He calculated that the former would outweigh the blowback of the latter. That does not mean that there aren't qualified Black female candidates for the Supreme Court. I'd imagine that the candidate he ultimately nominates well get an ABA "well qualified" rating. I'd also imagine that most Republicans will oppose the nomination (as most Democrats have opposed Republican nominees to the court since Bork). I'd further anticipate that the Senate will have little trouble confirming whoever is nominated and that a handful of older-guard Republicans will vote to confirm.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,481
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 28, 2022 15:52:50 GMT -5
Never fails to be a pleasure to watch Elvado step on a few rakes when contorting himself to justify his opinions. So good. I'm not going to take the time to see if there are any old Elvado posts which contradict what he has here, but at least what is posted in this thread seems pretty consistent. Candidates should not be selected/excluded on the basis race/gender/etc. (something which would likely violate Title VII and plenty of state laws if it was a private employer doing so); and the Senate should confirm qualified candidates, regardless of ideology or party. As I understand his posts, he is criticizing both parties for engaging in this conduct. Biden knew what he was doing when he decided to announce in advance that he would only consider a candidate of a particular race and gender. He knew it would play well to his base and particularly to a constituency he needed to win in the primaries--and he knew that Republicans would use that position against him. He calculated that the former would outweigh the blowback of the latter. That does not mean that there aren't qualified Black female candidates for the Supreme Court. I'd imagine that the candidate he ultimately nominates well get an ABA "well qualified" rating. I'd also imagine that most Republicans will oppose the nomination (as most Democrats have opposed Republican nominees to the court since Bork). I'd further anticipate that the Senate will have little trouble confirming whoever is nominated and that a handful of older-guard Republicans will vote to confirm. There is another piece to this. By announcing his qualifier is advance he is stating that “this is the best candidate from a self-limited pool of applicants”. His soon to be made selection may be the best candidate in the entire country and I hope she is. He has created the question with no need, other than base stirring, to do so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2022 16:29:48 GMT -5
I'm not going to take the time to see if there are any old Elvado posts which contradict what he has here, but at least what is posted in this thread seems pretty consistent. Candidates should not be selected/excluded on the basis race/gender/etc. (something which would likely violate Title VII and plenty of state laws if it was a private employer doing so); and the Senate should confirm qualified candidates, regardless of ideology or party. As I understand his posts, he is criticizing both parties for engaging in this conduct. Biden knew what he was doing when he decided to announce in advance that he would only consider a candidate of a particular race and gender. He knew it would play well to his base and particularly to a constituency he needed to win in the primaries--and he knew that Republicans would use that position against him. He calculated that the former would outweigh the blowback of the latter. That does not mean that there aren't qualified Black female candidates for the Supreme Court. I'd imagine that the candidate he ultimately nominates well get an ABA "well qualified" rating. I'd also imagine that most Republicans will oppose the nomination (as most Democrats have opposed Republican nominees to the court since Bork). I'd further anticipate that the Senate will have little trouble confirming whoever is nominated and that a handful of older-guard Republicans will vote to confirm. There is another piece to this. By announcing his qualifier is advance he is stating that “this is the best candidate from a self-limited pool of applicants”. His soon to be made selection may be the best candidate in the entire country and I hope she is. He has created the question with no need, other than base stirring, to do so. Every Supreme Court justice until 1967 was a white male. Do you think that's a coincidence? There's been 5 women and 3 non white justices in the entire history of the Supreme Court. Not a lot of ink has been wasted complaining about that, but a lot of ink will be spilled complaining about this?
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,481
|
Post by Elvado on Jan 28, 2022 16:46:22 GMT -5
I think Biden did his nominee a disservice.
Really don’t need your concurrence.
|
|