Justice Breyer retiring

[Deleted]

Jan 28, 2022 16:46:22 GMT -5 Elvado said:

I think Biden did his nominee a disservice.

Really don’t need your concurrence.

I'll believe this is a genuine opinion when you show me your post criticizing Trump for saying this.

“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman,” Trump

www.cnn.com/2020/09/20/politics/trump-supreme-court-woman-nominee-2020/index.html

Why didn't anyone on the right say Trump did Barrett a disservice when he announced this a day after RBG died? Isn't that a fair question to ask?

[SSHoya]

Conservatives have also conveniently forgotten that Ronald Reagan made a promise similar to Biden’s when he ran for president in 1980: He vowed to appoint the first female justice — and then did. When George H.W. Bush filled Thurgood Marshall’s seat with Clarence Thomas in 1991, everyone understood that Bush wanted to find a Black conservative.

But when a Democrat does the same thing, a noxious yet familiar narrative emerges: The true story of any advancement for a Black person, we’re told, is that White people are being victimized.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/28/race-baiting-response/

[tashoya]

This just in: "Republicans" take hypocrisy to a level never before seen in modern America.

[hoyarooter]

Jan 28, 2022 17:15:32 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

Conservatives have also conveniently forgotten that Ronald Reagan made a promise similar to Biden’s when he ran for president in 1980: He vowed to appoint the first female justice — and then did. When George H.W. Bush filled Thurgood Marshall’s seat with Clarence Thomas in 1991, everyone understood that Bush wanted to find a Black conservative.

But when a Democrat does the same thing, a noxious yet familiar narrative emerges: The true story of any advancement for a Black person, we’re told, is that White people are being victimized.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/28/race-baiting-response/

The Black Plague was a real thing back in the Middle Ages. Clarence Thomas is our own Black Plague - the worst appointment of Bush 1's term, in any position. He might as well have appointed Wilt Chamberlain.

[professorhoya]

Justice Breyer is a really nice man. Class act.

[Post 1, Friday 1/28 8:51 PM]

[Deleted]

[AvantGuardHoya]

Jan 28, 2022 20:44:08 GMT -5 hoyarooter said:

Jan 28, 2022 17:15:32 GMT -5 SSHoya said:

Conservatives have also conveniently forgotten that Ronald Reagan made a promise similar to Biden’s when he ran for president in 1980: He vowed to appoint the first female justice — and then did. When George H.W. Bush filled Thurgood Marshall’s seat with Clarence Thomas in 1991, everyone understood that Bush wanted to find a Black conservative.

But when a Democrat does the same thing, a noxious yet familiar narrative emerges: The true story of any advancement for a Black person, we’re told, is that White people are being victimized.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/01/28/race-baiting-response/

The Black Plague was a real thing back in the Middle Ages. Clarence Thomas is our own Black Plague - the worst appointment of Bush 1's term, in any position. He might as well have appointed Wilt Chamberlain.

Cut Wilt some slack! He was recognized as one of the greatest ever in his chosen field of endeavor. Absolutely nobody thinks of Clarence Thomas and his work on the SCOTUS in that regard.

Below is a photo of Chamberlain at MLK, Jr's funeral. I seriously doubt Thomas would have even considered attending. SMH.

Attachments:

[DanMcQ]

[Elvado]

Jan 30, 2022 1:05:55 GMT -5 DanMcQ said:

Right Joe. And when every Democrat voted against Coney Barrett it was misogyny.

It is disgusting party politics but racism might be a reach.

[hoyajinx]

Jan 30, 2022 6:00:08 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Jan 30, 2022 1:05:55 GMT -5 DanMcQ said:

Right Joe. And when every Democrat voted against Coney Barrett it was misogyny.

It is disgusting party politics but racism might be a reach.

Yeah, not racism at all.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/29/white-house-pushes-back-after-republican-senator-says-supreme-court-pick-will-be-beneficiary-affirmative-action/

[SSHoya]

MAGA GOP or even establishment GOP hyprocrisy knows no bounds. And this op-ed was written before Wicker's racist comments.

History, though, shows this is hardly a new thing — nor have such promises been determined to run afoul of the law. And, in fact, Haley appears to have said nothing when President Donald Trump signaled just two years ago that he had his own gender litmus test for a Supreme Court nomination.

Nor is Trump the only recent GOP president to make such a pledge. In fact, two and potentially three of the last four Republican presidents did the same thing — with little sign of such conservative pushback.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/27/biden-scotus-pick-conservative-criticism/

[hoya9797]

Jan 30, 2022 6:00:08 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Jan 30, 2022 1:05:55 GMT -5 DanMcQ said:

Right Joe. And when every Democrat voted against Coney Barrett it was misogyny.

It is disgusting party politics but racism might be a reach.

The GOP has not exactly earned the benefit of the doubt on this type of thing but, I agree with you on this. Broadly, this is not about racism but about team red vs team blue and the unwillingness of anyone to bend. There may be individual cases where the race issue is a factor but the unanimous no vote is happening no matter who gets nominated.

[TC]

Jan 30, 2022 10:18:34 GMT -5 hoya9797 said:

Jan 30, 2022 6:00:08 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Right Joe. And when every Democrat voted against Coney Barrett it was misogyny.

It is disgusting party politics but racism might be a reach.

The GOP has not exactly earned the benefit of the doubt on this type of thing but, I agree with you on this. Broadly, this is not about racism but about team red vs team blue and the unwillingness of anyone to bend. There may be individual cases where the race issue is a factor but the unanimous no vote is happening no matter who gets nominated.

Did Democratic Senators come out and say that they were troubled that Trump was limiting his candidates for the Barrett pick to white women? I do not remember that.

The black women thing is definitely a dog whistle. If the GOP waited for a candidate to emerge and attacked them on their record or ideology, that'd be a partisan politics thing. There's no candidate here.

[Deleted]

Made his announcement when he was a candidate & therefore politicized the process.… 🤔

Reagan Pledges He Would Name a Woman to the Supreme Court
By Lou Cannon
October 15, 1980
Ronald Reagan, striving to refute charges that he is insensitive to women's rights, said today he would name a woman to "one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration."

"It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists," Reagan said in a prepared statement to a news conference here. "I will also seek out women to appoint to other federal courts in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench."

Reagan appointed three persons to the state Supreme Court during the eight years he was governor of California. All were men. The Republican presidential nominee denied that his statement today was a reaction to criticism of his opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment. wSupporters of ERA have picketed many Reagan rallies.

. www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/10/15/reagan-pledges-he-would-name-a-woman-to-the-supreme-court/844817dc-27aa-4f5d-8e4f-0ab3a5e76865/

[SSHoya]

Poor Lindsay - risking the wrath of the orange psychopath. But who among the potential nominees is unqualified?

Graham on Sunday pushed back on Wicker’s comments, saying he did not see Childs as an affirmative action pick and that she is “qualified by every measure.”

“Put me in the camp of making sure the court and other institutions look like America,” he said. “Affirmative action is picking somebody not as well qualified for past wrongs. Michelle Childs is incredibly qualified. There’s no affirmative action component. If you pick her, she is highly qualified … We’ve only had five women serve and two African American men [on the Supreme Court]. So let’s make the court more like America.”

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/30/graham-clyburn-childs/

[SDHoya]

Again, this is not to say that there aren't qualified black female candidates. But over the last 30+ years as Supreme Court confirmations have become increasingly partisan, the opposing party has needed less and less as an excuse for why they are opposing the President's pick. The fact that there is a recent poll out indicating that 76% of Americans (including 54% of Democrats) prefer Biden consider "all possible nominees" regardless of demographic category, is more than Republicans need. And apparently only 28% of "non white Americans" are in favor of limiting the consideration pool, so it seems that this public opinion is not only bipartisan, but multi-racial as well.

Like I said before, once there is a single nominee to focus on, as opposed to the amorphous "black female", the debate will change quite a bit. Lindsay Graham sort of gave the game away a bit--if Biden nominates a well respected black female jurist (spoiler alert--he will), a handful of Republicans will go along with it to make for a fairly straightforward confirmation process. Ted Cruz would oppose Ted Cruz as the nominee, if Biden was the one to select him. And along with Ted, a number of Republicans will come up with any number of silly arguments for why the nominee is unqualified, and will bring up Biden's campaign statements--but at their core what all of them will really be saying is "you aren't someone on our team, so we won't vote for you." I certainly wish this weren't the case, but its currently the bipartisan par for the course.

[hoya73]

1005 of Republicans will oppose the nominee,no matter who it is. They may use this as an excuse, but they don't need an excuse.
The only exceptions will be those Republicans in the Senate who forced McConnell to allow a vote on Merrick Garland.

[DallasHoya]

Jan 31, 2022 11:43:51 GMT -5 SDHoya said:

Again, this is not to say that there aren't qualified black female candidates. But over the last 30+ years as Supreme Court confirmations have become increasingly partisan, the opposing party has needed less and less as an excuse for why they are opposing the President's pick. The fact that there is a recent poll out indicating that 76% of Americans (including 54% of Democrats) prefer Biden consider "all possible nominees" regardless of demographic category, is more than Republicans need. And apparently only 28% of "non white Americans" are in favor of limiting the consideration pool, so it seems that this public opinion is not only bipartisan, but multi-racial as well.

Like I said before, once there is a single nominee to focus on, as opposed to the amorphous "black female", the debate will change quite a bit. Lindsay Graham sort of gave the game away a bit--if Biden nominates a well respected black female jurist (spoiler alert--he will), a handful of Republicans will go along with it to make for a fairly straightforward confirmation process. Ted Cruz would oppose Ted Cruz as the nominee, if Biden was the one to select him. And along with Ted, a number of Republicans will come up with any number of silly arguments for why the nominee is unqualified, and will bring up Biden's campaign statements--but at their core what all of them will really be saying is "you aren't someone on our team, so we won't vote for you." I certainly wish this weren't the case, but its currently the bipartisan par for the course.

While I agree that many of the statements of the past few days by Republicans are racist dog whistles, some are not. And it doesn’t make one a racist to vote against a nominee who is a person of color. Case in point:

Who Is Janice Rogers Brown? Black D.C. Circuit Judge Biden Blocked From Appointment

GOP Fails To Break Estrada Filibuster

[hoyarooter]

Jan 29, 2022 16:00:42 GMT -5 AvantGuardHoya said:

Jan 28, 2022 20:44:08 GMT -5 hoyarooter said:

The Black Plague was a real thing back in the Middle Ages. Clarence Thomas is our own Black Plague - the worst appointment of Bush 1's term, in any position. He might as well have appointed Wilt Chamberlain.

Cut Wilt some slack! He was recognized as one of the greatest ever in his chosen field of endeavor. Absolutely nobody thinks of Clarence Thomas and his work on the SCOTUS in that regard.

Below is a photo of Chamberlain at MLK, Jr's funeral. I seriously doubt Thomas would have even considered attending. SMH.

It was not my intent to disparage Wilt. He was, and remains, one of the greatest hoopsters ever (although I used to hate it when he would shoot that damn finger roll when he was with the Lakers). What he also was, though, was a Republican who supported the Trickster. My only point was that Wilt was as qualified to be a Supreme Court justice as Clarence Thomas, which is not qualified at all.

[tashoya]

Jan 30, 2022 6:00:08 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Jan 30, 2022 1:05:55 GMT -5 DanMcQ said:

Right Joe. And when every Democrat voted against Coney Barrett it was misogyny.

It is disgusting party politics but racism might be a reach.

This is a tough argument to make when the possible nominees haven't been made public. You really can't think of any reasons, other than being female, that Dems would object to about Coney Barrett? At least they waited to find out who they were evaluating. This is a ridiculously false equivalence.