Supreme Court Nominee

[Chuck Naill]

I am hopeful for a balancing justice. Otherwise, more political hackism.

[dneal]

Yes, publicly stating you're only going to consider a black female is an insult to the qualified black females that will now have a stain on their selection they don't necessarily deserve. A "you only got nominated because..." asterisk on their tenure.

The notion that Kamala is qualified (noted because it's all over the speculative news) is ludicrous. Her history as a prosecutor is abominable. I read an article about Leondra Kruger (a justice on the CA Supreme Court) being a potential, and I read a few of her decisions. Don't agree with all of them, but she's definitely competent and certainly seems impartial.

[welch]

The Post thinks it might be one of these three:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/27/supreme-court-breyer-replacement-black-candidates/




Ketanji Brown Jackson


Ketanji Brown Jackson, 51, serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She was born in Washington, the daughter of two graduates of historically Black colleges and universities who instilled in her a sense that she could do or be anything she set her mind to, she recalled in a speech in March.

In June, Biden nominated Jackson to fill Merrick Garland’s seat on the D.C. Circuit after Garland was confirmed as attorney general. This fueled speculation that she was on the president’s shortlist for potential justices because the D.C. court is considered the second-most powerful in the country and because high court nominees are traditionally chosen from the federal appeals bench.

Biden’s court pick Ketanji Brown Jackson has navigated a path few Black women have. Jackson has clerked for Breyer and for two other federal judges. She attended Harvard University as an undergraduate and a law student, serving as an editor for the Harvard Law Review. And her experience as a public defender has endeared her to the more liberal base of the Democratic Party.


Leondra Kruger

Leondra Kruger, 45, is a California Supreme Court justice. At the U.S. Department of Justice, she served as deputy solicitor general, the federal government’s second-ranking representative in arguments at the Supreme Court, before becoming one of the youngest people ever nominated to the high court in California, taking her seat in 2015.

During her tenure in the Office of the Solicitor General, Kruger argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court, according to her court biography.

She has previously rebuffed offers from the White House to take a job in the administration.

Kruger is from California and attended Harvard as an undergraduate, followed by Yale University as a law student, serving as editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal. She clerked for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and for a judge on the U.S. Appeals Court in D.C.


J. Michelle Childs

J. Michelle Childs, 55, has served on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina for over a decade. Biden unexpectedly nominated her last month to serve on the high-profile D.C. Circuit, surprising Washington-area lawyers who had anticipated a pick with local ties.

Childs served in state government on the Workers’ Compensation Commission and was deputy director of South Carolina’s Department of Labor. She was born in Detroit and moved to South Carolina as a teen and has said she was the first Black female partner in a major law firm in the state. She holds undergraduate and graduate degrees from state schools in Florida and South Carolina.

A favorite of one of Biden’s most influential congressional allies, House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), Childs faces a confirmation hearing next week for her nomination to the D.C. Appeals Court.

Clyburn and Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) have said in interviews that Childs would meet Biden’s frequently stated goal of bringing more diverse backgrounds to the Supreme Court — not just because she is a Black woman, but also because she did not attend an Ivy League law school.

“Joe Biden has talked about the kind of experiences he’d bring into the presidency,” Clyburn said. “He was brought up in Scranton, in Delaware, educated in the public schools. That’s who Michelle Childs is.”

[TSherbs]

The Post thinks it might be one of these three:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/27/supreme-court-breyer-replacement-black-candidates/




Ketanji Brown Jackson


Ketanji Brown Jackson, 51, serves as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She was born in Washington, the daughter of two graduates of historically Black colleges and universities who instilled in her a sense that she could do or be anything she set her mind to, she recalled in a speech in March.

In June, Biden nominated Jackson to fill Merrick Garland’s seat on the D.C. Circuit after Garland was confirmed as attorney general. This fueled speculation that she was on the president’s shortlist for potential justices because the D.C. court is considered the second-most powerful in the country and because high court nominees are traditionally chosen from the federal appeals bench.

Biden’s court pick Ketanji Brown Jackson has navigated a path few Black women have. Jackson has clerked for Breyer and for two other federal judges. She attended Harvard University as an undergraduate and a law student, serving as an editor for the Harvard Law Review. And her experience as a public defender has endeared her to the more liberal base of the Democratic Party.


Leondra Kruger

Leondra Kruger, 45, is a California Supreme Court justice. At the U.S. Department of Justice, she served as deputy solicitor general, the federal government’s second-ranking representative in arguments at the Supreme Court, before becoming one of the youngest people ever nominated to the high court in California, taking her seat in 2015.

During her tenure in the Office of the Solicitor General, Kruger argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court, according to her court biography.

She has previously rebuffed offers from the White House to take a job in the administration.

Kruger is from California and attended Harvard as an undergraduate, followed by Yale University as a law student, serving as editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal. She clerked for Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and for a judge on the U.S. Appeals Court in D.C.


J. Michelle Childs

J. Michelle Childs, 55, has served on the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina for over a decade. Biden unexpectedly nominated her last month to serve on the high-profile D.C. Circuit, surprising Washington-area lawyers who had anticipated a pick with local ties.

Childs served in state government on the Workers’ Compensation Commission and was deputy director of South Carolina’s Department of Labor. She was born in Detroit and moved to South Carolina as a teen and has said she was the first Black female partner in a major law firm in the state. She holds undergraduate and graduate degrees from state schools in Florida and South Carolina.

A favorite of one of Biden’s most influential congressional allies, House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), Childs faces a confirmation hearing next week for her nomination to the D.C. Appeals Court.

Clyburn and Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) have said in interviews that Childs would meet Biden’s frequently stated goal of bringing more diverse backgrounds to the Supreme Court — not just because she is a Black woman, but also because she did not attend an Ivy League law school.

“Joe Biden has talked about the kind of experiences he’d bring into the presidency,” Clyburn said. “He was brought up in Scranton, in Delaware, educated in the public schools. That’s who Michelle Childs is.”

Each of these individuals is fully qualified for the position.

So bring on the circus show in the Senate.

[Bold2013]

I hope the best person gets the spot regardless of gender and skin color.

[Chuck Naill]

It was a campaign promise to nominate an AA female. A gender and racially diverse court have many positives. Nominating three white people and expecting them to vote your way is not a good precedent to follow.

[dneal]

Announcing you’re going to pick a white male would be called racist and sexist. Change the two descriptors to black and female, and it’s still racist and sexist.

It’s also called “pandering”.

[Chuck Naill]

If the nation had racial/gender equality, then it would be pandering. Putting three people on to overturn settled law to appease White Evangelicals is pandering and self-serving in case you need to overturn an election.

[kazoolaw]

Each of these individuals is fully qualified for the position.


Based on anything beyond the WaPo?

[dneal]

If the nation had racial/gender equality, then it would be pandering. Putting three people on to overturn settled law to appease White Evangelicals is pandering and self-serving in case you need to overturn an election.

Blah, blah, blah. Just woke assertions with no evidence or even attempt to substantiate them.

What constitutes "racial/gender equality"? What constitutes "settled law"? What is your evidence that (presumably) Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett were selected to "appease White Evangelicals"? What is your evidence they were selected "in case you need to overturn an election"? - particularly since the SC made no ruling favorable to the losing candidate.

Pandering is to proclaim during a campaign that you will make a racist and sexist nomination, in hopes it will persuade those of that race and/or sex to vote for you.

An African American female who is now nominated will carry the stigma of being the "best" African American female - not the best candidate. Not pandering (nor doubling down on it from the WH), and simply selecting a black female, removes the stain you put on their nomination.

It is a President's prerogative to nominate whoever they wish, for whatever reason. It's still moronic to announce racist and sexist criteria for a selection.

[Chuck Naill]

I am more and more curious why some US citizens are willing to listen, and self-educate regarding the 12 million Africans who were forcibly transported to the Western Hemisphere to enrich the nation and their owners while others find it anathema.

If one cannot see the disparity does that mean it doesn't exist. To be reminded it does exist must make them angry, for they can no longer pretend. I think that's it. Being made aware can be liberating for some and frightening to others because once you have the truth, it either makes you free or mad.

[dneal]

There you go with those goalposts…

[Chuck Naill]

Hey, man. Not trying to change your mind, just making an observation.

[Chuck Naill]

For me, I’d like to be armed with enough truth to think as correct as possible.

[kazoolaw]

I am more and more curious why some US citizens are willing to listen, and self-educate regarding the 12 million Africans who were forcibly transported to the Western Hemisphere to enrich the nation and their owners while others find it anathema.

...it either makes you free or mad.

You persist in arguing that those who disagree with you are ignorant of history. From what I've seen of your posts you came to your "knowledge" late in life and, out of guilt for not learning what was plainly there to be seen, are trying to atone for your lack of intellectual curiousity concerning race in America.

Yes, it has made you mad.

[Bold2013]

Using sexism and racism to fight ‘injustice’. Makes perfect sense…

[Chuck Naill]

That’s the sort of response that does nothing!

I’m sure each of us use something to come to our own way of thinking . Comity says we appreciate others perspective. It appears to be is short supply .

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I would like to believe that the nominee will be assessed as being the best for the position irrespective of their race or gender. However, as dneal points out, the fact that these characteristics are mentioned in the same breath as the nomination means that the nomination has become overtly tainted.

[Chuck Naill]

I disagree EOC.

[Chuck Naill]

Perhaps more level heads will reply.

[Chuck Naill]

How many of you were whining when Trump vowed to nominate a female?

[Chuck Naill]

And at a time when he was loosing the white female support.

[Bold2013]

Unfortunately this situation further substantiates that the court is political.

Also that the left’s outlook for the 2022, and 2024 is pessimistic.

[724Seney]

Perhaps more level heads will reply.

Wait?
More level headed than you Chuck??

67041

[welch]

I would like to believe that the nominee will be assessed as being the best for the position irrespective of their race or gender. However, as dneal points out, the fact that these characteristics are mentioned in the same breath as the nomination means that the nomination has become overtly tainted.

It has been like this for about thirty years. George HW Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, a conservative black man to replace Thurgood Marshall, a liberal black man who had, before the court, been an important civil rights attorney. Republicans pledge to nominate anti-abortion justices. Trump appointed a woman, Amy Coney Barrett, to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

It is pretty routine.

The US is a large country with many superior legal minds across state and Federal judgeships. It is easy to pick someone really good who happens to fit where a President wants the Supreme Court to go.

[TSherbs]

I'll repeat: the three possible candidates named in the WaPo article are all highly qualified. The President is not obligated to name them not name others. He is not obligated, actually, to appoint anyone at all. Never in the history of these appointments has a president ever appointed who is *best* (highest qualifications). We couldn't even measure such a person accurately. Gender and race have ALWAYS been factors in the choices. In every choice, every single time. It's bullshit to suggest that it is not right or proper to do so now. For the record, I believe a President should have wide leeway to appoint whomever he/she wants, as long as they meet minimum standards of qualification. Two of which can be gender and race, whether it is stated or not.

[TSherbs]

I would like to believe that the nominee will be assessed as being the best for the position irrespective of their race or gender. However, as dneal points out, the fact that these characteristics are mentioned in the same breath as the nomination means that the nomination has become overtly tainted.

It has been like this for about thirty years.

More like for 180 years. Every justice appointed from the start until 1967 first had to be white and had to be male. Presidents did not have to promise this: it was a necessary and minimum qualification understood by all and enforced through the prevailing white supremacist culture.

[kazoolaw]

I'll repeat: the three possible candidates named in the WaPo article are all highly qualified.

And I'll repeat, what do you know of them apart from their names appearing in the WaPo?

The President is in fact free to appoint whomever. And the Senate is free to give or withhold its advice and consent.

[kazoolaw]

...as long as they meet minimum standards of qualification. Two of which can be gender and race, whether it is stated or not.

What are the minimum standards of qualification, from a constitutional standpoint?

[Bold2013]

I would like to believe that the nominee will be assessed as being the best for the position irrespective of their race or gender. However, as dneal points out, the fact that these characteristics are mentioned in the same breath as the nomination means that the nomination has become overtly tainted.

It has been like this for about thirty years.

More like for 180 years. Every justice appointed from the start until 1967 first had to be white and had to be male. Presidents did not have to promise this: it was a necessary and minimum qualification understood by all and enforced through the prevailing white supremacist culture.

Ethnic Gnosticism

[kazoolaw]

I would like to believe that the nominee will be assessed as being the best for the position irrespective of their race or gender. However, as dneal points out, the fact that these characteristics are mentioned in the same breath as the nomination means that the nomination has become overtly tainted.

It has been like this for about thirty years. George HW Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, a conservative black man to replace Thurgood Marshall, a liberal black man who had, before the court, been an important civil rights attorney. Republicans pledge to nominate anti-abortion justices. Trump appointed a woman, Amy Coney Barrett, to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

It is pretty routine.

The US is a large country with many superior legal minds across state and Federal judgeships. It is easy to pick someone really good who happens to fit where a President wants the Supreme Court to go.

Clarence Thomas, in response to then-Senator Joe Biden asking if there was anything he'd like to say to the Judiciary Committee:

"And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for
uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different
ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You
will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. -- U.S. Senate, rather than hung from
a tree."

When in doubt, follow the politics. Promises to nominate are often political offers to "buy" votes used by both parties. Joe Biden is just cruder than most, promising to nominate a black person to the Supreme Court, and then making it clear that if you don't support Biden for President you're not black: "Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."

Maybe this nomination is Joe Biden's penance for filibustering the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown.

[Chuck Naill]

Obama nominated a white male.

[TSherbs]

Obama nominated a white male.

That was another Senate circus show. The ugliness over fighting nominations to the SC is, for me, one of our national embarrassments. All the way back to Bork.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Note: my other post stated 'I would like to believe...'

I am aware of what has gone before and continues to this day, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

[Chip]

The US Supreme Court has always been a political entity. For most of its existence, it worked to enforce racial discrimination (e.g. Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson) and other doctrines that have been recognized as unjust, unfair, and unconstitutional. Any recent idea that the court is above politics vanished when it handed the presidency to George W. Bush (Bush v. Gore) in a blatantly political decision that stopped a legal recount.

The present court by no conceivable standard represents the US electorate or population (unless there is a previously unremarked majority of right-wing Catholics). The notion that justices are selected according to their legal qualifications, apart from politics, is insane.

I hope Biden nominates someone who will challenge the present biased majority on the court.

Justice Thomas (owing to his wife's longstanding corrupt financial and lobbying activity) should either resign or face ethics charges.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/31/is-ginni-thomas-a-threat-to-the-supreme-court

[kazoolaw]

...as long as they meet minimum standards of qualification. Two of which can be gender and race, whether it is stated or not.

What are the minimum standards of qualification, from a constitutional standpoint?

A pulse: no age limit, no citizenship requirement, no law degree required.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

[Chuck Naill]

The US Supreme Court has always been a political entity. For most of its existence, it worked to enforce racial discrimination (e.g. Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson) and other doctrines that have been recognized as unjust, unfair, and unconstitutional. Any recent idea that the court is above politics vanished when it handed the presidency to George W. Bush (Bush v. Gore) in a blatantly political decision that stopped a legal recount.

The present court by no conceivable standard represents the US electorate or population (unless there is a previously unremarked majority of right-wing Catholics). The notion that justices are selected according to their legal qualifications, apart from politics, is insane.

I hope Biden nominates someone who will challenge the present biased majority on the court.

Justice Thomas (owing to his wife's longstanding corrupt financial and lobbying activity) should either resign or face ethics charges.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/01/31/is-ginni-thomas-a-threat-to-the-supreme-court

I just learned of Thomas' wife's activities Thursday on Fresh Air. I agree. She has benefitted from his position, and he remains as quite as a church mouse.

[Chuck Naill]

Since race is a part of this thread, or some have made it so, perhaps it is appropriate to talk about it.

One member introduced Ethnic Gnosticism or the assertion that one member of one ethnicity cannot understand what it is like to be a member of a different group. I see particularily true for American white people when it comes to African Americans.

I once had a white, female manager who said that it had been 150 years and so black people should be "good to go". Or, stop whining and complaining.

It is like someone who has lost a child, had their house destroyed by a fire, or been raped, one simply cannot get over it. It occurred. If they grew up in a Jewish, Muslim, Hispanic household and felt the looks from strangers, it stays with them. Racism has almost become invisible, but it is there.

Let black people get upset at it is met with brutal force. Let white people get upset, and you get a democracy challenged. And what is most ironic, many whites see them both as the same.

When you get to know various generations of African Americans, they each have a story where race has played a role in their lives. There is not time and space to explain it all here. but just to say that perhaps some here might consider that you don't understand and will try to either read or talk. It is possible you might have a different experience than me, but I doubt it if you go about it objectively with a mind to learn and not to confirm some bias. Most won't, but some might.

[TSherbs]

Childs has been acknowledged as being on the short list:

CNN: White House confirms J. Michelle Childs is among 'multiple individuals' under consideration for Supreme Court nomination.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/28/politics/j-michelle-childs-supreme-court-consideration-white-house/index.html

[kazoolaw]

The present court by no conceivable standard represents the US electorate or population (unless there is a previously unremarked majority of right-wing Catholics). The notion that justices are selected according to their legal qualifications, apart from politics, is insane.


You might be interested to research the "Jewish seat" on the Supreme Court.

[Chuck Naill]

Childs has been acknowledged as being on the short list:

CNN: White House confirms J. Michelle Childs is among 'multiple individuals' under consideration for Supreme Court nomination.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/28/politics/j-michelle-childs-supreme-court-consideration-white-house/index.html

If you're in the path of the blizzard, Ted, take care. :)

[kazoolaw]

I'll repeat: the three possible candidates named in the WaPo article are all highly qualified.
...as they meet minimum standards of qualification. Two of which can be gender and race, whether it is stated or not.

There are no constitutional "minimum standards of qualification."
To be clear, the only qualifications you've identified are gender and race.
To claim someone is "highly qualified" without being able to articulate what those qualifications are, much less how a nominee meets those qualifications, is empty rhetoric.


Correction: I earlier said that the President "appoints" to the Supreme Court. As the SC webpage states, the President nominates, the Senate votes to confirm.

[Chuck Naill]

Being female and black does indicate a highly qualified candidate...LOL!! Much more qualified than a white dude. I am sure Ted will, as we all have come to expect we must, do you homework for you. Just sit back, have another beer, and wait.

Besides racial issues, the US is still wrangling over the 28th Amendment.

[TSherbs]

Childs has been acknowledged as being on the short list:

CNN: White House confirms J. Michelle Childs is among 'multiple individuals' under consideration for Supreme Court nomination.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/28/politics/j-michelle-childs-supreme-court-consideration-white-house/index.html

If you're in the path of the blizzard, Ted, take care. :)

The wind and snow are howling. Hunkered down. So far we still have power (no generator). I worry about the homeless. In Portland, Maine, even in winter, they are just in tents. Subzero temps some nights.

Our friends in Boston are to get it worse.

[TSherbs]

Being female and black does indicate a highly qualified candidate...LOL!! Much more qualified than a white dude. I am sure Ted will, as we all have come to expect we must, do you homework for you. Just sit back, have another beer, and wait.



Not sure what this is about. I don't read or respond to him anymore.

I've got to go top off the oil in the Toro. The blower is gonna get a good bit of action later today. The double stage thrower will sure come in handy.

[Chuck Naill]

Being female and black does indicate a highly qualified candidate...LOL!! Much more qualified than a white dude. I am sure Ted will, as we all have come to expect we must, do you homework for you. Just sit back, have another beer, and wait.



Not sure what this is about. I don't read or respond to him anymore.

I've got to go top off the oil in the Toro. The blower is gonna get a good bit of action later today. The double stage thrower will sure come in handy.

My bad. I am not up to date on your ignored folks. You didn't miss anything. He's a stupid son of a bitch. Oh wait, someone else used that this week.

Good to know you recycle your oil, you liberal you!!

[kazoolaw]

My bad. I am not up to date on your ignored folks. You didn't miss anything. He's a stupid son of a bitch. Oh wait, someone else used that this week.

Good one: are you claiming your teleprompter made you do it? I'll await your call to clear the air.

[TSherbs]

Good to know you recycle your oil, you liberal you!!

Huh? No way, but I do have to turn it in at the dump (into barrels provided for proper recycling once they are full). Our town is very strict about trash and recycling. The state charges us more (and then our fees go up) when we don't meet recycling targets (paper, plastic, metals, glass must all be separated out).

Very different from most southern states, no?

[Chuck Naill]

I’ve recycled for decades

[TSherbs]

I meant the town and state requirements. You can't even buy styrofoam (nor use it for take out food or beverage) in my state anymore, and you can't get a bag at a grocery store unless you ask for one and pay for it.

[Chuck Naill]

I meant the town and state requirements. You can't even buy styrofoam (nor use it for take out food or beverage) in my state anymore, and you can't get a bag at a grocery store unless you ask for one and pay for it.

Okay, I get it

[welch]

I would like to believe that the nominee will be assessed as being the best for the position irrespective of their race or gender. However, as dneal points out, the fact that these characteristics are mentioned in the same breath as the nomination means that the nomination has become overtly tainted.

It has been like this for about thirty years. George HW Bush nominated Clarence Thomas, a conservative black man to replace Thurgood Marshall, a liberal black man who had, before the court, been an important civil rights attorney. Republicans pledge to nominate anti-abortion justices. Trump appointed a woman, Amy Coney Barrett, to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

It is pretty routine.

The US is a large country with many superior legal minds across state and Federal judgeships. It is easy to pick someone really good who happens to fit where a President wants the Supreme Court to go.

Clarence Thomas, in response to then-Senator Joe Biden asking if there was anything he'd like to say to the Judiciary Committee:

"And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I'm concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for
uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different
ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You
will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. -- U.S. Senate, rather than hung from
a tree."

When in doubt, follow the politics. Promises to nominate are often political offers to "buy" votes used by both parties. Joe Biden is just cruder than most, promising to nominate a black person to the Supreme Court, and then making it clear that if you don't support Biden for President you're not black: "Well I tell you what, if you have a problem figuring out whether you're for me or Trump, then you ain't black."

Maybe this nomination is Joe Biden's penance for filibustering the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown.

As I remember it, Biden supported Clarence Thomas against Anita Hill. This was Biden's offer to let Thomas get a word against her.

More important: Presidents have always based nominations to the Supreme Court on how much the nominee supports the President's policy. His politics. That's what policy is about. John Adams nominated the Virginia Federalist John Marshall. Andrew Jackson nominated his former Attorney General and temporary Secretary of the Treasury, Roger B. Taney, to replace Marshall. A Supreme Court nomination is always a political nomination. The issue of "qualified" or "unqualified" has usually come up when the ABA looks into a nominee and judges them worthy or unworthy. That's about it. Remember that Nixon nominated two segregationists from the South, nominated them successively. Haynesworth was found to be a segregationist, and rejected. Nixon nominated another southerner, Carrswell, who was found to be a segregationist and unqualified. Carrswell's judgements had been overturned too many times. (That led to an exchange in the Senate, when a defender of Carrswell agreed that, yes, Carrswell was mediocre, but argued that mediocre people deserved a voice on the Supreme Court.)

(John Jay, the first Chief Justice, might be the exception, but parties had not developed much in 1789)

That's how the Supreme Court is selected, EOC. The President chooses a sharp legal thinker who fits with their politics. Bold complains that
Unfortunately this situation further substantiates that the court is political. That's just how the American political system works. Why, do you think, the Supreme Court blocked FDR so often during the Great Depression? Who had appointed the judges, and when? Why did the Court become more liberal, seat by seat, as time passed and Roosevelt and Truman and Eisenhower got to appoint justices?

[Bold2013]

Not complaining just think most would prefer the court to be apolitical.

[Chip]

I've got to go top off the oil in the Toro. The blower is gonna get a good bit of action later today. The double stage thrower will sure come in handy.

After fighting a huge Husqvarna blower for years, I just got an electric model: SnowJoe Two-stage 24 inch, with 100v rechargeable batteries.

https://i.imgur.com/rTmDbzz.jpg

No more spraying ether in the sparkplug hole, no more hauling on a rope in subzero temps, no more smelly gas can. No more earplugs or stinky exhaust fumes. Just pop in the batteries and go.

Sorry for the swerve. Back to the Supreme Court.

[TSherbs]

Not complaining just think most would prefer the court to be apolitical.

It was never meant to be apolitical. I disagree. I think most people want it to have a mixture of ideologies. We just disagree on which ideology we'd like to see prevail in the mixture.

[dneal]

As I remember it, Biden supported Clarence Thomas against Anita Hill. This was Biden's offer to let Thomas get a word against her.


Holy revisionist history Batman...

[welch]

As I remember it, Biden supported Clarence Thomas against Anita Hill. This was Biden's offer to let Thomas get a word against her.


Holy revisionist history Batman...

Ha! You don't remember?

Meanwhile, Bold says,


Not complaining just think most would prefer the court to be apolitical.

The Supreme Court have never been apolitical. While I haven't checked Madison's debates, so I won't pretend to know what the Framers meant the Court to be, it is clear that, since Marshall, Supreme Court selection has been political. Presidents appoint the most competent people who agree with them, more or less. That's why Carswell was remarkable. Ordinarily, the Senate confirms whoever the President nominates. Robert Bork was an exception, except that Bork had agreed to fire Archibald Cox, the Watergate prosecutor, after the Attorney General (Richardson?) and the Assistant AG (I forget his name) had refused and had resigned. When Reagan nominated Bork, a lot of people remembered. Otherwise, that's unusual.

Best we can hope for is that a President picks someone smart who is also honest. The appointment-for-a-lifetime ensures that a Justice can be independent, but, of course, they will have political opinions.

[dneal]

I remember. Biden was the chairman of the judiciary committee. Did he vote "yea" or "nay" on Thomas' appointment to the bench?

If no, you have a tough row to hoe arguing he "supported" Thomas.

[Bold2013]

I am not denying that the court is political. I just wish it wasn’t. In the same way I wish we could have more than two major political parties.

[kazoolaw]

As I remember it, Biden supported Clarence Thomas against Anita Hill. This was Biden's offer to let Thomas get a word against her.


Holy revisionist history Batman...

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1021/vote_102_1_00220.htm

[welch]

I remember. Biden was the chairman of the judiciary committee. Did he vote "yea" or "nay" on Thomas' appointment to the bench?

If no, you have a tough row to hoe arguing he "supported" Thomas.

Biden voted yes on Thomas.

[welch]

As I remember it, Biden supported Clarence Thomas against Anita Hill. This was Biden's offer to let Thomas get a word against her.


Holy revisionist history Batman...

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1021/vote_102_1_00220.htm

Wow!

My memory is that Biden shut off -- refused to hear -- a half-dozen women who wanted to testify in support of Anita Hill. He did, however, allow testimony from several men who claimed that Hill was neurotic, had aggressively pursued men, and was an attention-needing liar. He invited Thomas to defend his character.

[Chuck Naill]

Apparently not from what I have read.

[kazoolaw]

As I remember it, Biden supported Clarence Thomas against Anita Hill. This was Biden's offer to let Thomas get a word against her.


Holy revisionist history Batman...

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1021/vote_102_1_00220.htm

Wow!

My memory is that Biden shut off -- refused to hear -- a half-dozen women who wanted to testify in support of Anita Hill. He did, however, allow testimony from several men who claimed that Hill was neurotic, had aggressively pursued men, and was an attention-needing liar. He invited Thomas to defend his character.

our memories do funny things. There are references that at some point Joe apologiz d to Ms. Hill.

Your memory with Bork went to the Cox firing, while mine went to Kennedy saying Bork's confirmation would drive women to back-alley abortions.

[TSherbs]

As I remember it, Biden supported Clarence Thomas against Anita Hill. This was Biden's offer to let Thomas get a word against her.


Holy revisionist history Batman...

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1021/vote_102_1_00220.htm

Wow!

My memory is that Biden shut off -- refused to hear -- a half-dozen women who wanted to testify in support of Anita Hill. He did, however, allow testimony from several men who claimed that Hill was neurotic, had aggressively pursued men, and was an attention-needing liar. He invited Thomas to defend his character.

Anita Hill was the only one who behaved well in that disgusting circus show.

[Chuck Naill]

Kavenaugh displayed the same victim and Thomas.

[TSherbs]

Ha.

New York Daily News: Conservatives freak out over Black woman on Supreme Court.

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-greene-supreme-court-black-woman-20220130-j3olex4tubb3dnsktzhan52taa-story.html

[kazoolaw]

Ha.

New York Daily News: Conservatives freak out over Black woman on Supreme Court?

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-greene-supreme-court-black-woman-20220130-j3olex4tubb3dnsktzhan52taa-story.html

Ha-ha:

76% of all those polled, including a majority of Dems, agree Biden should consider all possible nominees.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/01/poll-majority-biden-all-nominees-supreme-court.html

Weigh the sources, look at the actual data, decide who has reported accurately.

[Chuck Naill]

I think some here might think the best candidate could never be a black female.

[kazoolaw]

Chuck,
what, in your mind, would make a candidate the "best?"

[Chuck Naill]

First, not looking for a "best". Best can be the enemy of "good". Good means practical and collaborative.

A good judge would of course have the necessary qualifications, but beyond that a perspective that was honed with experience, and a perspective that gender and race bring. For example, Barrett brings a female perspective when considering Roe v Wade that a male could not, as easily. We benefit with a diverse court just as I benefit from posts here when differing opinions and perspectives are communicated.

When you consider that Ginsberg was replaced with Barrett, we lost a liberal voice and gained a conservative voice. Too many thinking the same can be dangerous. The court is a team and teams work best where compromise and collaboration benefit the whole.

[kazoolaw]

I understand that you want a female because she would bring a "female perspective," and a black nominee would, in your mind, bring a "black perspective."
We've slid by what you believe "the necessary qualifications" are. Can I safely assume you mean at least an adult, with a law degree, with judicial experience at some level? Not trying to put words in your mouth, but you've not defined that term to this point.
Recently members of The View said that Justice Thomas doesn't represent blacks, and Justice Barrett doesn't represent women. [No, I'm not adopting their positions, but point out that those positions are out there and articulated.] I wonder what they, and you, would say constitutes a "black" or "female" perspective. For The View I would guess they mean Democrat and liberal. I would guess that if Condoleeza Rice had a law degree the Democrats would never agree that she would be an acceptable nominee.
Looking only at the profiles from the WaPo I'm not sure how you tell whether any of those potential candidates meet those qualifications. Other than the fact Biden will nominate, do you have any information on their views? I've not gone into that research yet; I'll wait until the name is submitted.

[Chuck Naill]

Never said I wanted a black female. Biden did.

I am saying that surely there is the possibility of a qualified candidate. What I have been hearing from you and others here is that you would prefer that race and gender not be one of the qualifications. Some white people talk about being color blind, but color blindness was never something the Civil Rights leaders wanted. What makes us interesting is our differences and then bringing those differences to bear on our companies and communities.

Academic qualifications are assumed and no reason to list them.

Yes, just as a Republican would nominate a conservative jurist, it would be taken for granted a liberal would nominate a more liberal jurist.

[dneal]

I remember reading about Nathan Bedford Forrest, the Civil War general that became the first grand wizard of the Klan; but repented in his elder years and saw the error of his ways. He proclaimed those errors often and publicly, surely to assuage his guilty conscience.

I have to wonder about older white males who suddenly "discover" racism, and - like Forrest - want to share their newly discovered views. It's no wonder they must assume others hated people for the same reasons they did - projecting it on them, in fact - perhaps in an attempt to minimize what they now despise in themselves. I sometimes wonder what stains they must have on their souls that they spend so much effort trying to purge their sins from their conscience, not realizing that flagellating the innocent is merely continuance of the same stereotype and prejudice - only with a different target. Old habits die hard, I suppose.

[kazoolaw]

Academic qualifications are assumed and no reason to list them.

Agreed but, fun fact: we've had a Justice who didn't attend grade schook, high school, or law school. Interesting things you learn on the way to researching something else

[Chuck Naill]

I should also mention the elitism that can render someone with power out of touch. I've studied Lincoln's background and how his experiences when young, before studying law, shaped his opinions about slavery. You can observe an evolution of thought.

Compare Brent Kavanaugh's education and early life with that of Michelle Childs.

I've always liked this verse, "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin."

Hebrews 4:15 — King James Version (KJV 1900)

[Bold2013]

I think some here might think the best candidate could never be a black female.

I think that this statement is being a false witness

[Chuck Naill]

I think some here might think the best candidate could never be a black female.

I think that this statement is being a false witness

Should I care what you "think"? There have been enough comments to make an observation.

First comments were that only qualified candidates should be considered as if a black woman would not be qualified. Can the two not exist in the same person?

[Cookedj]

My hope is for a justice that is a Constitutionalist and doesn't try to legislate from the bench.

[Bold2013]

I think some here might think the best candidate could never be a black female.

I think that this statement is being a false witness

Should I care what you "think"? There have been enough comments to make an observation.

First comments were that only qualified candidates should be considered as if a black woman would not be qualified. Can the two not exist in the same person?

Well part of loving your neighbor is not bearing false witness against them.

[Chuck Naill]

I think some here might think the best candidate could never be a black female.

I think that this statement is being a false witness

Should I care what you "think"? There have been enough comments to make an observation.

First comments were that only qualified candidates should be considered as if a black woman would not be qualified. Can the two not exist in the same person?

Well part of loving your neighbor is not bearing false witness against them.
But you are accusing me falsely. So, who is worse? Me for speaking the truth or you? Anybody can call anyone a liar falsely. Calling someone a liar doesn’t make them one.

[dneal]

I think some here might think the best candidate could never be a black female.

I think that this statement is being a false witness

Should I care what you "think"? There have been enough comments to make an observation.

First comments were that only qualified candidates should be considered as if a black woman would not be qualified. Can the two not exist in the same person?

Well part of loving your neighbor is not bearing false witness against them.
But you are accusing me falsely. So, who is worse? Me for speaking the truth or you? Anybody can call anyone a liar falsely. Calling someone a liar doesn’t make them one.

Chuck missed that “do unto others…” part, it seems.

[Chuck Naill]

@tsherbs, I am reading M. Rediker’s The Slave Ship.

[TSherbs]

@tsherbs, I am reading M. Rediker’s The Slave Ship.

I've heard of it from colleagues. The historical nexus of global capitalism and white supremacy.

[TSherbs]

Never said I wanted a black female. Biden did.

Easy for me to say: I want a black woman on the SC. Long overdue. And there are plenty of highly-competent and experienced African-American female candidates.

[TSherbs]

Compare Brent Kavanaugh's education and early life with that of Michelle Childs.


I never questioned Trump's right and prerogative to nominate Kavanaugh.

He was just so personally repugnant to me that I could not imagine following through on that nomination. He likely lied under oath to those senators, and he was vilely oozing with the privilege and assumption that this SC position was his for the taking. He was disgusting, in the same way that Thomas was: vile sexist pigs who thought that they deserved the position for their jurisprudence *only* and not for the content of their character or past behavior (which they considered grossly unfair to bring up). Both of them clearly resented the lifting of the curtain onto their past behaviors. Both of them were so un-Christian, un-humble, un-repentant. So like Trump, really. Blechh.

[Chuck Naill]

Never said I wanted a black female. Biden did.

Easy for me to say: I want a black woman on the SC. Long overdue. And there are plenty of highly-competent and experienced African-American female candidates.

For me, it is like wanting Black coaches, educators, and other positions of influence and power. I will include females. There will always be those that say they got their positions due to skin color or gender, but those are easy to ignore because the greater good outweighs their opinions. I've even been called a liar for a non-direct comment that can easily be shown. So, it is not just white privilege, but an indignation for even suggesting a bias.

[TSherbs]

Never said I wanted a black female. Biden did.

Easy for me to say: I want a black woman on the SC. Long overdue. And there are plenty of highly-competent and experienced African-American female candidates.
....There will always be those that say they got their positions due to skin color or gender...

Nothing different from all the white men who got the position in part due to their race and gender, previously (prior to 1967).

[TSherbs]

The Hill: Georgetown lecturer suspended after tweets about Biden court nominee |

TheHill.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/592221-georgetown-lecturer-suspended-after-tweets-about-biden-court-nominee

He should sweat for his job. He is wrong and unprofessional as an educator in a couple of important ways.

First, to call anyone "objectively best" in a political nominated position is inaccurate and unmeasurable. There is not now, nor has there ever been, an "objective measure of best."

Secondly, for the same reason, there has never been a measure of "lesser."

Thirdly, to state this *only* as an objection to the nomination of a black woman (not even made yet, so only in theory) and not as an objection to the process in general whether the selection has bias toward whites or men or whomever, nor to acknowledge the history of decades and decades of bias prior, is to take a racist position in service of hegemony of the dominant classes.

None of which a professor under contract should be doing publicly, especially not when not in service to or in answer to their employer.

[kazoolaw]

Never been a college prof: do they sign away all First Amendment rights at the door?

[kazoolaw]

Follow the politics: Joe threatened to use that relic of Jim Crow to filibuster the nomination of a black woman to the Supreme Court. Couldn't let a Republican do that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/02/01/biden-black-woman-janice-rogers-brown/

[Chuck Naill]

Can't read, Kazoolaw. If you have a subscription, maybe you can gift it here.

[kazoolaw]

Odd, I don't have a subscription yet it opens right up, maybe try again?

[kazoolaw]

Odd, I don't have a subscription yet it opens right up, maybe try again?

Forgive my poor cut-and-paste.

Opinion: Biden blocked the first Black woman from the Supreme Court



President Biden wants credit for nominating the first Black woman to the Supreme Court. But here is the shameful irony: As a senator, Biden warned President George W. Bush that if he nominated the first Black woman to serve on the Supreme Court, he would filibuster and kill her nomination.
The story begins in 2003, when Bush nominated Judge Janice Rogers Brown to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The D.C. Circuit is considered the country’s second-most important court, and has produced more Supreme Court justices than any other federal court. Brown was immediately hailed as a potential Supreme Court nominee. She was highly qualified, having served for seven years as an associate justice of the California Supreme Court — the first Black woman to do so. She was the daughter and granddaughter of sharecroppers, and grew up in rural Alabama during the dark days of segregation, when her family refused to enter restaurants or theaters with separate entrances for Black customers. She rose from poverty and put herself through college and UCLA law school as a working single mother. She was a self-made African American legal star. But she was an outspoken conservative — so Biden set out to destroy her.
Biden and his fellow Democrats filibustered her nomination, along with several other Bush circuit court nominees, all of whom had majority support in the Senate. Columnist Robert Novak called it “the first full-scale effort in American history to prevent a president from picking the federal judges he wants.” Democrats argued that she was out of the legal mainstream, but Republicans responded that she had written more majority opinions than any other justice on the California Supreme Court — and she was reelected with 76 percent of the vote, the highest percentage of all the justices on the ballot.
Advertisement
When Democrats derailed her nomination, Bush renominated her in 2005. Brown was eventually confirmed by a vote of 56 to 43 — after Democrats released her and several other Bush nominees in exchange for Republican agreement not to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations. Biden voted a second time against her nomination. He never explained why, if Brown was so radical, Democrats let her through but killed 10 other Bush nominees.
The following month, when Justice Sandra Day O’Connor announced her retirement, Brown was on Bush’s shortlist to replace her. She would have been the first Black woman ever nominated to serve as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. But Biden appeared on CBS’s “Face the Nation” to warn that if Bush nominated Brown, she would face a filibuster. “I can assure you that would be a very, very, very difficult fight and she probably would be filibustered,” Biden said. Asked by moderator John Roberts “Wasn’t she just confirmed?,” Biden replied that the Supreme Court is a “totally different ballgame” because “a circuit court judge is bound by stare decisis. They don’t get to make new law.”

________________________________________

What Biden threatened was unprecedented. There has never been a successful filibuster of a nominee for associate justice in the history of the republic. Biden wanted to make a Black woman the first in history to have her nomination killed by filibuster. Bush eventually nominated Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Advertisement
Today, Biden calls the filibuster a “relic of the Jim Crow era.” But he threatened to use that relic as a tool to keep a Black woman who actually lived under Jim Crow off the highest court in the land. The irony is that now he wants to get rid of the filibuster, and claim credit for putting the first Black woman on the court.
There were many conservatives on Bush’s shortlist whose legal philosophy Biden opposed. But Biden only promised to filibuster the one Black woman. Why? Perhaps a clue lies in another confirmation fight that Biden helped wage. In 2001, Democrats blocked the nomination of Miguel Estrada to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. According to internal strategy memos obtained by the Wall Street Journal, they targeted Estrada at the request of liberal interest groups who said Estrada was “especially dangerous” because “he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.” They did not want Republicans to put the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. So, Biden and his fellow Democrats killed Estrada’s nomination — the first appeals court nominee in history to be successfully filibustered. It paid off when President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor as the first Hispanic justice.
Democrats’ commitment to diversity is a ruse. Biden was willing to destroy the careers of an accomplished Latino lawyer and a respected Black female judge, and stop Republicans from putting either on the Supreme Court. For Democrats, it’s all about identity politics. Indeed, Biden might not have become president had he not made the pledge to nominate a Black woman. That promise helped secure the endorsement of Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.) — which won Biden the South Carolina primary and rescued his faltering campaign.
So, when Biden tries to bask in the glory of his historic nomination, remember Janice Rogers Brown — the Black woman who does not sit on the Supreme Court today because of Biden’s disgraceful obstruction

[Chuck Naill]

Thank you for posting @kazoolaw. Isn't it interesting how hypocritical people can be? Perhaps it is not about black females, but black females that agree with you. I am not at all surprised, but given the three conservatives recently appointed, a balance is in order.

[dneal]

Hypocrisy isn’t a logical fallacy. It does destroy credibility.

[Chuck Naill]

We are all hypocritical at one point or another, but with politics, it affects more people.

[dneal]

Some people try not to be, and point it out when they see it.

Some continue for expediency, or dismiss it as “whataboutism” - especially when faced with the cognitive dissonance.

[Chuck Naill]

Sorry, I had to put you back on my ignore list @dneal. Your fault.

[dneal]

Sorry, I had to put you back on my ignore list @dneal. Your fault.

Fault? Nope. Completely intentional, although you and I both know you'll peek - just like I knew you would have to stick out your pouty lip and declare you're ignoring me. It's that hypocrisy problem you have.

[kazoolaw]

Thank you for posting @kazoolaw. Isn't it interesting how hypocritical people can be? Perhaps it is not about black females, but black females that agree with you. I am not at all surprised, but given the three conservatives recently appointed, a balance is in order.

Well Chuck, this is the first time you've admitted that Biden is a hypocrite.
Hold that thought, you're beginning to catch on.

[Chuck Naill]

Thank you for posting @kazoolaw. Isn't it interesting how hypocritical people can be? Perhaps it is not about black females, but black females that agree with you. I am not at all surprised, but given the three conservatives recently appointed, a balance is in order.

Well Chuck, this is the first time you've admitted that Biden is a hypocrite.
Hold that thought, you're beginning to catch on.


You have a odd response style that I find irritating.
You are as capable of hypocrisy as I am. That doesn’t make you a hypocrite, just hypocritical.

I think you are nothing but a troll and I was trying to be approachable, but now I can see your nothing but a stupid son of a bitch…lol! You’ll go back in my ignore list.

[kazoolaw]

Don't project yourself into a discussion of the hypocrisy of politicians: I didn't.

[dneal]

You have a odd response style that I find irritating

The hypocrisy and irony!!! ROFL!!!

[kazoolaw]

The Senate Majority Leader, during Black History Month, erases Justice Thurgood Marshall, claiming there were no black justices before 1981.

[Chuck Naill]

Sorry, I cannot see what you posted, but I have an idea based on historic posts.

[dneal]

Sorry, I cannot see what you posted, but I have an idea based on historic posts.

Just like a toddler. Walking back in the room with their pouty lip stuck out to make sure everyone knows they’re being ignored. The toddler of course is doing precisely the opposite of their stated claim. What’s that called again? Oh yeah, hypocrisy. Color me surprised…

[Chuck Naill]

Cant see your post either.

[dneal]

Cant see your post either.

That makes this one even funnier.

[Chuck Naill]

sorry

[dneal]

sorry

ROFL!!!

[Chuck Naill]

please refer to former post.

[kazoolaw]

please refer to former post.

Remember those long-running fights about who has to have the last word...

[dneal]

please refer to former post.

Remember those long-running fights about who has to have the last word...


What's hilarious is that he still has to have the last word, even when he's "ignoring" us. LMAO!!!

[TSherbs]

I think you are nothing but a troll...

Several persons here are just trolling you, Chuck. Stop responding. The threads degrade into garbage when you engage with them. Sometimes you troll them, too, so you get what you ask for.

[kazoolaw]

You know TS, when Chuck calls me a "stupid son of a bitch" followed by an "lol" it's kind of endearing. Certainly not inflammatory or offensive.

[Chuck Naill]

I think you are nothing but a troll...

Several persons here are just trolling you, Chuck. Stop responding. The threads degrade into garbage when you engage with them. Sometimes you troll them, too, so you get what you ask for.

Thank you, Ted. I will do as you say. "Wounds from a sincere friend are better than many kisses from an enemy." Proverbs 27:6

[Jed]

I hope the best person gets the spot regardless of gender and skin color.

https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-to-nominate-progressive-woman-of-color-elizabeth-warren-to-supreme-court

[Jed]

Here's one contribution (sometimes satire is clearer than propaganda):

https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-seen-looking-at-color-swatches-to-choose-next-supreme-court-justice

[Chuck Naill]

The Babylon Bee is a conservative Christian news satire website that publishes satirical articles on topics including religion, politics, current events, and public figures. It has been referred to in the media as a Christian, evangelical, or conservative version of The Onion.[1][2][3]

[Jed]

Meta comment:

BTW, I'm grateful - regardless of the "heat" of this particular thread - that FPGeeks provides the opportunity for such heat. It's as if the people running this joint want to treat the members as adults!

With certain segments of our country becoming more censorious (see image link from dropbox below - a Pew study), I'm grateful for the openness, among people who share my hobby.

Jed

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wl09guhkxccp01v/image.png?dl=0

Tyranny comes in different forms. It can come in anarchic form. It can come in monarchic and oligarchic forms. It can even come, as the American founders warned, in democratic form. It will come, in whatever form, when people yield to it, censor themselves, stop asking questions.
- Robert P. George

[Jed]

The Babylon Bee is a conservative Christian news satire website that publishes satirical articles on topics including religion, politics, current events, and public figures. It has been referred to in the media as a Christian, evangelical, or conservative version of The Onion.[1][2][3]

"It has been referred to in the media . . ." There's a flag that everything else in this sentence is going to be catchwords that render it near useless. But since we're tossing around adjectives, here's another: "based in California!" EWWWW!!!!! Gross!!!! :-)

On the word "conservative", I'm hard pressed to understand that. I suspect there's not much going on in culture that the writers at the Bee want to conserve, actually. By the way, they poke fun at the prior president, too:

https://babylonbee.com/news/trump-fans-excited-to-vote-for-the-guy-who-fast-tracked-vaccines-and-hired-fauci

One wonders about what the best adjectives for The Onion would be. "Unfunny" would be one. "Dry" would be another. "Nihilistic" maybe? "With a much, much smaller circulation than the Babylon Bee" might be another! :-)

[Chuck Naill]

Much nonsense is "referred to in the media".

[TSherbs]

Meta comment:

BTW, I'm grateful - regardless of the "heat" of this particular thread - that FPGeeks provides the opportunity for such heat. It's as if the people running this joint want to treat the members as adults!

With certain segments of our country becoming more censorious (see image link from dropbox below - a Pew study), I'm grateful for the openness, among people who share my hobby.

Jed

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wl09guhkxccp01v/image.png?dl=0

Tyranny comes in different forms. It can come in anarchic form. It can come in monarchic and oligarchic forms. It can even come, as the American founders warned, in democratic form. It will come, in whatever form, when people yield to it, censor themselves, stop asking questions.
- Robert P. George

The problem with heat is that it doesn't always produce light.

[TSherbs]

Much nonsense is "referred to in the media".

"People are saying..."....

[Chuck Naill]

As Dallas Willard said, "reality is what you can count on".
And someone, somewhere said, "you will know the truth and it will make you free". And, "ginóskó: to come to know, recognize, perceive Original Word: γινώσκω Part of Speech: Verb Transliteration: ginóskó Phonetic Spelling: (ghin-oce'-ko) Definition: to come to know, recognize, perceive"

[Chuck Naill]

Much nonsense is "referred to in the media".

"People are saying..."....

For me, what you quoted in that poem regarding the falcon not being able to hear the falconer was a beautiful depiction of the necessity to be connected to truth. Jesus spoke of it as a vine. Being connected to the vine is the essential quality, not bearing fruit.

[TSherbs]

So, Judge Jackson it is. Republicans on the committee say that they will be respectful. We'll see, won't we.


Fox News: Supreme Court nomination: Senate Judiciary aims for 'respectful' confirmation process.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-nomination-senate-judiciary-aims-respectful-confirmation-process

[dneal]

I suspect I won't agree with her politics or judicial philosophy, but she's qualified so I hope she's approved and isn't subject to any more of the hyper-partisan political theater that's already out of control.

[724Seney]

So, Judge Jackson it is. Republicans on the committee say that they will be respectful. We'll see, won't we.


Fox News: Supreme Court nomination: Senate Judiciary aims for 'respectful' confirmation process.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-nomination-senate-judiciary-aims-respectful-confirmation-process

Actually, no, we won't see.
Because your sarcasm reflects that you have clearly already made up your pinhead, woke loving mind they will not........
Even if they far outdistance the degree of respectful (?) "decorum" shown by the Democrats in the confirmation processes of Kavanaugh & Coney-Barrett, you will still find ways to condemn them as racist, white supremacist pigs.

[TSherbs]

So, Judge Jackson it is. Republicans on the committee say that they will be respectful. We'll see, won't we.


Fox News: Supreme Court nomination: Senate Judiciary aims for 'respectful' confirmation process.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-nomination-senate-judiciary-aims-respectful-confirmation-process

Actually, no, we won't see.
Because your sarcasm reflects that you have clearly already made up your pinhead, woke loving mind they will not........
Even if they far outdistance the degree of respectful (?) "decorum" shown by the Democrats in the confirmation processes of Kavanaugh & Coney-Barrett, you will still find ways to condemn them as racist, white supremacist pigs.

Kavanaugh is the pig, not Coney Barrett. And I never called either one a racist.

Get your facts and insults straight.

[TSherbs]

I was not opposed to the Coney Barrett nomination except to worry about her religious extremism. She was clearly a capable and worthy nominee.

Kavanaugh is a piece of shit.

Jackson appears to be an upstanding person and judge, like Coney Barrett, very capable.

[724Seney]

So, Judge Jackson it is. Republicans on the committee say that they will be respectful. We'll see, won't we.


Fox News: Supreme Court nomination: Senate Judiciary aims for 'respectful' confirmation process.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-nomination-senate-judiciary-aims-respectful-confirmation-process

Actually, no, we won't see.
Because your sarcasm reflects that you have clearly already made up your pinhead, woke loving mind they will not........
Even if they far outdistance the degree of respectful (?) "decorum" shown by the Democrats in the confirmation processes of Kavanaugh & Coney-Barrett, you will still find ways to condemn them as racist, white supremacist pigs.

Kavanaugh is the pig, not Coney Barrett. And I never called either one a racist.

Get your facts and insults straight.

Your reading comprehension is as poor as are most of your other cognitive skills, pal.
Last I checked, you are not one of the Democrats involved in the confirmation process.

So, don't flatter yourself by thinking I was referring to you in my comment. There was no need for me to do so; I know where you "stand."
(Which is, of course, just a metaphor. Bugs only crawl.)

[Chip]

It'll be interesting to see how many ducks and dodges the white supremacist senators, most representing former slave states, will deploy against the nomination.

[TSherbs]

Fuck off, Seney. This discussion goes better without your particular brand of vitriol.

[TSherbs]

It'll be interesting to see how many ducks and dodges the white supremacist senators, most representing former slave states, will deploy against the nomination.

GOP intransigence over this nomination of a very capable, strong candidate will require particular finesse. The usual hatchetmen may not be up to the task.

[Chuck Naill]

Kavanaugh is forever flawed. Barrett was pro life. Thomas and Kavanaugh used a false righteous indignation strategy. She does not appear to be someone who will respond as if she's on the verge of a conniption fit as they did.

[TSherbs]

The worst part is the grandstanding, looking for soundbites for the senators' own re-election campaigns. Really gross.

[TSherbs]

Kavanaugh is forever flawed. Barrett was pro life. Thomas and Kavanaugh used a false righteous indignation strategy. She does not appear to be someone who will respond as if she's on the verge of a conniption fit as they did.

Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh adopted this attitude. We'll see what happens this time. Maybe the circus show will not be as embarassing. But I have my doubts.

[Chuck Naill]

The worst part is the grandstanding, looking for soundbites for the senators' own re-election campaigns. Really gross.

What I find ironic is how these people will whine like a baby about wokeness and CRT and swallow Trump, Ivermetin, and stage protests about having to wear a mask or receive a shot. I mean, if you have no more of a foundation in yourself that you cannot recognize that others have not had your advantages or willingness to do all you can to protect your vulnerable neighbors against a virus that could kill them, I hate to imagine their posture if Russia was on their street.

How can you be pro life and not do all you can to protect others? Is an unborn more valuable than a born? Is a black or brown less than you? I was watching a program about Miles Davis getting the shit beat out of him when he was smoking outside his club with his name on the marquee. Explain how this would have happened to a white dude?

Ted Cruz was complaining that Biden was excluding the majority white people by promising to choose a black female. Only in Texas I suppose. :)

[TSherbs]

The worst part is the grandstanding, looking for soundbites for the senators' own re-election campaigns. Really gross.

...

Ted Cruz was complaining that Biden was excluding the majority white people by promising to choose a black female...

Cruz has made other racist comments, also. I guess that this sells in Texas. To enough people to get re-elected, anyway. (my state has its issues, too)

[724Seney]

Fuck off, Seney. This discussion goes better without your particular brand of vitriol.

Sure is a lucky thing you are a teacher. I mean, after all, aren't teachers supposed to help students how to use words to make their point?
Your unending, inappropriate profanities denigrate the sense of decency that most legitimate teachers try to inspire among their students.

So, sure, let's take a look at your point. "This discussion goes better without your particular brand of vitriol."
By this you mean to say that my suggestion that you & Tweedle Dum are incapable of entering into anything discussion that involves a Republican or someone with a more conservative view than yours and not trash it from the get-go ruins the discussion?
Are you saying that what you want is a non-stop, "one way, my way" rant which is uninterrupted by any one who does not share your brain dead, "woke" (what an oxymoron) perception of the world?
If so, what we need to do is to find a corner where you and he can just sit and pull each other's putz's until you have nothing left to pull. A sheer idiot's delight.

This is all to my original point of the absurdity of the "We'll see, won't we" comment you made in post #128. We won't have to wait and see what you think, we already know. Same old, same old.

[Chuck Naill]

@724Seney, do you have an $80k retirement pickup? LOL! Thanks for providing a definition of someone having a conniption fit.

The thing is, you can't make a rational argument against being "woke". Maybe ask Tucker or donald. Then you'll know what to type.

No, you won't have to wait because, as is your usual strategy, you'll run off rather than seek to understand.

Ted was right even if he did use the f word.

[724Seney]

@724Seney, do you have an $80k retirement pickup? LOL! Thanks for providing a definition of someone having a conniption fit.

The thing is, you can't make a rational argument against being "woke". Maybe ask Tucker or donald. Then you'll know what to type.

No, you won't have to wait because, as is your usual strategy, you'll run off rather than seek to understand.

Ted was right even if he did use the f word.

Yep folks, here it is......FPG's very own version of Dumb & Dumber!!

[kazoolaw]

Fuck off, Seney. This discussion goes better without your particular brand of vitriol.

Seney, you will come to see that TS thinks that he has a momopoly on vitriol.

[kazoolaw]

Yup, was supposed to be "monopoly."

[Chuck Naill]

@724Seney, do you have an $80k retirement pickup? LOL! Thanks for providing a definition of someone having a conniption fit.

The thing is, you can't make a rational argument against being "woke". Maybe ask Tucker or donald. Then you'll know what to type.

No, you won't have to wait because, as is your usual strategy, you'll run off rather than seek to understand.

Ted was right even if he did use the f word.

Yep folks, here it is......FPG's very own version of Dumb & Dumber!!

Thank you so much for demonstrating that if you don't have something to say, resort to personal attacks. If you send me a self portrait, I'll make you the poster child. Maybe with your $80k pickup that you got for being white and male. ...LOL!!

[TSherbs]

Hey, take it to the other (new thread)

[TSherbs]

Back on topic: if I have read this thread right, no one here has yet mentioned a reason that Biden should not have selected any one of the short list judges that were on his list (apparently). And now that Judge Jackson has been chosen, no one here has yet made mention how she should not be a candidate taken seriously. I'll repeat: she seems, upon cursory review by a lay person (me), to be very well- qualified in experience, intelligence, and character. We'll see what the hearing brings out.

[Chuck Naill]

Back on topic: if I have read this thread right, no one here has yet mentioned a reason that Biden should not have selected any one of the short list judges that were on his list (apparently). And now that Judge Jackson has been chosen, no one here has yet made mention how she should not be a candidate taken seriously. I'll repeat: she seems, upon cursory review by a lay person (me), to be very well- qualified in experience, intelligence, and character. We'll see what the hearing brings out.

I never said she shouldn't be considered or nominated. Come on bro.

[TSherbs]

I never said she shouldn't be considered or nominated. Come on bro.

I know. No one has. I am reminding people of this.

[Chuck Naill]

Just so the Trumpians know, I am posting with "half my brain tied behind my back". So, let the neanderthals take that into consideration...LOL!!

[TSherbs]

So, Judge Jackson it is. Republicans on the committee say that they will be respectful. We'll see, won't we.


Fox News: Supreme Court nomination: Senate Judiciary aims for 'respectful' confirmation process.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-nomination-senate-judiciary-aims-respectful-confirmation-process

Actually, no, we won't see.
Because your sarcasm reflects that you have clearly already made up your pinhead, woke loving mind they will not....

Let's be clear: this is the point that this thread took its nasty recent turn. I wasnt talking to Seney nor about him nor about any other member here. I was on topic. And Seney swooped in with this nasty bit of ad hominem invective, directed at "you" (meaning me, the one he was quoting). Then, he derided my reading comprehension when I responded directly to the aspersion and he even had the temerity to deny that he was addressing me.

So then I said, to myself, that it was a pity that others had to suffer these paroxysms of invective and so I made a separate thread to try to direct the nastiness there.

The topic here is the Supreme Court nominee, and as of yesterday we have a specific nominee: Judge Ketanji Jackson. I repeat: she appears to be a strong candidate. I imagine that the GOP is constructing some kind of case against her, but it will likely be mild and directly mostly by those who need material for their own campaigns. The conservatives have a 6-3 majority, and this nomination does nothing to change the scales. The GOP should not risk too much in public image when so little is actually at stake in the power balance.

[Chuck Naill]

Ted, I get it. I saw what happened. We are dealing with Fox news junkies. They ride around in their $80K pick-em-up trucks all day and listen to Tucky to get some talking points.

If I read the times to get talking points to support my view, I would have maybe four of five pundits. My interest is in what those outside my thoughts have to say. I can think of precious few who post hear with anything that isn't Trumpian pablum baby food. It is why they resort to making personal attacks. There is no original thought. Some can't even quote people alive or dead.

[dneal]

Just so the Trumpians know, I am posting with "half my brain tied behind my back". So, let the neanderthals take that into consideration...LOL!!

Hmmm


Ad hominem exchanges begin with someone who has run out of ammunition.

[dneal]

Ted, I get it. I saw what happened. We are dealing with Fox news junkies. They ride around in their $80K pick-em-up trucks all day and listen to Tucky to get some talking points.

If I read the times to get talking points to support my view, I would have maybe four of five pundits. My interest is in what those outside my thoughts have to say. I can think of precious few who post hear with anything that isn't Trumpian pablum baby food. It is why they resort to making personal attacks. There is no original thought. Some can't even quote people alive or dead.

Thanks for consolidating your hypocrisy in one post.

[Chuck Naill]

Ted, I get it. I saw what happened. We are dealing with Fox news junkies. They ride around in their $80K pick-em-up trucks all day and listen to Tucky to get some talking points.

If I read the times to get talking points to support my view, I would have maybe four of five pundits. My interest is in what those outside my thoughts have to say. I can think of precious few who post hear with anything that isn't Trumpian pablum baby food. It is why they resort to making personal attacks. There is no original thought. Some can't even quote people alive or dead.

Thanks for consolidating your hypocrisy in one post.

Do you change your own oil in that pickup? Well, probably not. You might get your fingers dirty.

[dneal]

Ted, I get it. I saw what happened. We are dealing with Fox news junkies. They ride around in their $80K pick-em-up trucks all day and listen to Tucky to get some talking points.

If I read the times to get talking points to support my view, I would have maybe four of five pundits. My interest is in what those outside my thoughts have to say. I can think of precious few who post hear with anything that isn't Trumpian pablum baby food. It is why they resort to making personal attacks. There is no original thought. Some can't even quote people alive or dead.

Thanks for consolidating your hypocrisy in one post.

Do you change your own oil in that pickup? Well, probably not. You might get your fingers dirty.

Still out of ammunition?

[Chuck Naill]

Ted, I get it. I saw what happened. We are dealing with Fox news junkies. They ride around in their $80K pick-em-up trucks all day and listen to Tucky to get some talking points.

If I read the times to get talking points to support my view, I would have maybe four of five pundits. My interest is in what those outside my thoughts have to say. I can think of precious few who post hear with anything that isn't Trumpian pablum baby food. It is why they resort to making personal attacks. There is no original thought. Some can't even quote people alive or dead.

Thanks for consolidating your hypocrisy in one post.

Do you change your own oil in that pickup? Well, probably not. You might get your fingers dirty.

Still out of ammunition?

I'll take that as you don't know a drain plug from a hole in the ground. Just checking, Tucker.

[dneal]

I'll take that as you don't know a drain plug from a hole in the ground. Just checking, Tucker.


Ad hominem exchanges begin with someone who has run out of ammunition.

ROFL!!!

[Chuck Naill]

Exactly what I expected .

[dneal]

Pointing out your hypocrisy? Mocking you by mimicking your behavior?

You just now learned to expect that in response to your nonsense?

ROFL!!!

[Chuck Naill]

I will say this, I am never disappointed.

[kazoolaw]

To return to the topic:
Judge Jackson is a member of the Harvard University Board of Overseers.
https://www.harvard.edu/about-harvard/leadership-and-governance/board-of-overseers/
Harvard University is being sued for discriminating against Asian American applicants.
Several fair topics for questioning at a confirmation hearing: What will be the standard that you will use to decide whether to recuse yourself from hearings in this case if you are confirmed? If Harvard is found to have discriminated against Asian Americans will you resign as a Justice, as you were a member of the entity which "is to ensure that Harvard remains true to its charter as a place of learning. The Board also provides counsel to the University’s leadership on priorities, plans, and strategic initiatives."
You can also expect questioning regarding her being reversed on appeal for deciding a case over which she had no jurisdiction, and another for judicial overreach for deciding a case in light of a federal law stating the question was left to the federal agency alone. [Please refer to the https://jonathanturley.org/2022/02/28/wink-and-a-nod-nomination-who-really-is-ketanji-brown-jackson/
[Please refer to the Preserve, Protect and Defend topic: https://fpgeeks.com/forum/showthread.php/34991-Preserve-protect-and-defend]
I suspect that there will be a lot of "Thank you for that question..." followed by non-responsive replies. [Note the reference to Justice Thomas and [I]Roe vs Wade in the Turley article.]
And then there's Senator Hazie Hirono's favorite question: "I ask each nominee these two questions, and I will ask them of you. Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or assault of a sexual nature?"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/hirono-asks-barrett-if-she-has-ever-made-unwanted-requests-for-sexual-favors
As Sen. Hirono is still on the Judiciary Committee we'll see if she follows through. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members

[Chip]

Hazie Hirono?

Misty Hirono?

Cloudy with rain?

Speaking of discrimination, the preference of successive Republican administrations for right-wing Catholics, nearly all white, is much more blatant and egregious than anything Harvard has done.

[TSherbs]

Pretty good reporter's piece on where we are with the Jackson nomination.

CNN: Republicans weigh approach for Ketanji Brown Jackson nomination fight.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/07/politics/republicans-ketanji-brown-jackson-confirmation/index.html

[Chuck Naill]

As usual McConnell is whining, she won't answer a question for which is not relevant for a justice to decide.

[TSherbs]

As usual McConnell is whining, she won't answer a question for which is not relevant for a justice to decide.

It's his job to whine in this situation. She'll be confirmed. Dems have nothing to lose; the GOP has to be careful with her because they have a lot to lose if they handle her wrong.

[Chuck Naill]

If you're going to whine, whine about something relevant. That's his job.

[kazoolaw]

Speaking of discrimination, the preference of successive Republican administrations for right-wing Catholics, nearly all white, is much more blatant and egregious than anything Harvard has done.


Nostalgic for the anti-Catholic jokes during the JFK campaign, or a reminder of the history of the KKK (a Democrat organization) targeting Catholics?

[kazoolaw]

As usual McConnell is whining, she won't answer a question for which is not relevant for a justice to decide.

180 degrees off: the problem is a judicial nominee refusing to answer questions that are relevant.

[Chuck Naill]

As usual McConnell is whining, she won't answer a question for which is not relevant for a justice to decide.

180 degrees off: the problem is a judicial nominee refusing to answer questions that are relevant.


They don't have a say. No reason to respond.

[kazoolaw]

Dems have nothing to lose; the GOP has to be careful with her because they have a lot to lose if they handle her wrong.

Given her nomination by a Democrat President we're likely not to see a last minute, unproven charge of sexual impropriety. There are any number of legitimate areas for probing questioning. The more difficult issue is who will be doing the questioning and going off the rails.
They can also use the questioning to remind people of Biden's opposition to the nomination of Judge Janice Brown. But again, that requires a degree of sophistication and tact which seem to be in short supply.

[Chuck Naill]

Don't fall for it,Ted. He's just baiting.

[724Seney]

Don't fall for it,Ted. He's just baiting.
Rub a dub dub
Two clueless putzes in a tub

[TSherbs]

Don't fall for it,Ted. He's just baiting.
Rub a dub dub
Two clueless putzes in a tub

You drunk?

[kazoolaw]

Me? Sober as a judge.

[Chip]

Me? Sober as a judge.

I have a long memory, too.

FBI Files Detail Rehnquist Drug Addiction
By Reuters Staff

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The late U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist was dependent on a powerful sedative during his first decade on the Supreme Court and became delusional when he stopped taking the drug in 1981, The Washington Post reported on Friday, citing newly released FBI files.

The fact that Rehnquist checked into a hospital for a week in late December 1981 to be treated for back pain and dependence on a prescription drug was previously known, the Post said. The 1,561 pages from the FBI files on Rehnquist released this week reveal new details about the length and intensity of the addiction, the newspaper reported. Rehnquist was appointed to the court by President Richard Nixon in 1971 and nominated as chief justice by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. He died in September 2005.

The Post reported that the FBI concluded during its 1986 investigation that Rehnquist began taking the drug Placidyl for insomnia after back surgery in 1971 and was, by 1981, taking apparently three times the usual starting dose each night.

Doctors interviewed by the FBI told agents that when Rehnquist stopped taking the drug, he suffered paranoid delusions, including imagining “a CIA plot against him,” the newspaper reported.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rehnquist-sedatives-idUSN0422252220070105

[kazoolaw]

I have a long memory, too.

But not so much for multiple definitions:
"sober as a judge:
1. To be stoic and reserved, perhaps even somber.
Anita has been as sober as a judge ever since she heard of Marshall's death.
The coach stood at the side of the field, sober as a judge, as the clock counted down on his team's championship ambitions.
2. To be calm and rational."
Uses 1 and 2
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/as+sober+as+a+judge

[TSherbs]

Me? Sober as a judge.

I have a long memory, too.

FBI Files Detail Rehnquist Drug Addiction
By Reuters Staff

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The late U.S. Chief Justice William Rehnquist was dependent on a powerful sedative during his first decade on the Supreme Court and became delusional when he stopped taking the drug in 1981, The Washington Post reported on Friday, citing newly released FBI files.

The fact that Rehnquist checked into a hospital for a week in late December 1981 to be treated for back pain and dependence on a prescription drug was previously known, the Post said. The 1,561 pages from the FBI files on Rehnquist released this week reveal new details about the length and intensity of the addiction, the newspaper reported. Rehnquist was appointed to the court by President Richard Nixon in 1971 and nominated as chief justice by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. He died in September 2005.

The Post reported that the FBI concluded during its 1986 investigation that Rehnquist began taking the drug Placidyl for insomnia after back surgery in 1971 and was, by 1981, taking apparently three times the usual starting dose each night.

Doctors interviewed by the FBI told agents that when Rehnquist stopped taking the drug, he suffered paranoid delusions, including imagining “a CIA plot against him,” the newspaper reported.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-rehnquist-sedatives-idUSN0422252220070105

So, a fair question of Jackson might be, "Do you now, or have you ever, imagined yourself the target of a CIA plot against you?" The irony is, that if she were to answer "Yes, but only when I go off my triple dose of painkillers," she would qualify as much as Rehnquist. :)

[dneal]

Frankly, this shit is political theater for the echo chambers. A dime-store drama to keep the proles entertained and distracted.

A liberal holds office. A liberal nominated another liberal to replace a liberal on the Supreme Court. Liberals will cheer, Conservatives will boo. It makes for great "fuck those other guys" TV.

If you're wrapped up in it, you're part of the problem.

If she's qualified (and she seems to be), approve the nomination. It will change nothing about the court.

Kaz is right though, a couple of Republicans will probably make some borderline (or even over the line) assertions - great for some 30 second soundbites for each side to cheer or revile - but at least we won't get the "sexual harassment" theater the Dems like to trot out.

[Chip]

It will change nothing about the court.

It will make the court a bit more representative of the American public and legal practice.

The zero-sum Republican approach over the years has put some highly questionable characters on the high bench, simply because they are reliably fascist and authoritarian.

[kazoolaw]

Today’s Justices have spent more time in elite academic settings (both as students and faculty) than any previous Court. Every current Justice but Barrett attended either Harvard or Yale Law School, and four of the Justices were tenured professors at prestigious law schools. They also spent more time as Federal Appellate Court Judges than any previous Court. These two jobs (tenured law professor and appellate judge) share two critical components: both jobs are basically lifetime appointments that involve little or no contact with the public at large. The modern Supreme Court Justices have spent their lives in cloistered and elite settings, the polar opposite of past Justices.

The current Supreme Court is packed with a very specific type of person: type-A overachievers who have triumphed in a long tournament measuring academic and technical legal excellence. This Court desperately lacks individuals who reflect a different type of “merit.”
Amazon description of The Credentialed Court: Inside the Cloistered, Elite World of American Justice

[Chip]

The current Supreme Court is packed with a very specific type of person: type-A overachievers who have triumphed in a long tournament measuring academic and technical legal excellence. This Court desperately lacks individuals who reflect a different type of “merit.”

That reflects the values of the legal profession as a whole and also the polarized view of merit, with big gaps between state and federal judges, law profs in general, practicing private attorneys, the American Bar Association, and groups such as the Federalist Society that promote a narrow version of legal judgement.

Are you proposing a quota system? Get a couple public defenders and some ambulance chasers on the high bench?

[TSherbs]

Collins will vote for Jackson:

CNN: Susan Collins signals Biden Supreme Court pick could win her vote after 'productive' meeting.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/08/politics/susan-collins-ketanji-brown-jackson-supreme-court/index.html

[kazoolaw]

The current Supreme Court is packed with a very specific type of person: type-A overachievers who have triumphed in a long tournament measuring academic and technical legal excellence. This Court desperately lacks individuals who reflect a different type of “merit.”

That reflects the values of the legal profession as a whole and also the polarized view of merit, with big gaps between state and federal judges, law profs in general, practicing private attorneys, the American Bar Association, and groups such as the Federalist Society that promote a narrow version of legal judgement.

Are you proposing a quota system? Get a couple public defenders and some ambulance chasers on the high bench?

Not sure what "That" in your post refers to. If the entire first sentence, don't agree that it represents the profession "as a whole."

Actually, I was more interested in the first paragraph's focus on all but one justice coming from two private law schools located in adjacent states in the northeastern part of the US, and the lack of practicing attorneys. No interest in quotas.

[kazoolaw]

Since this Forum is part of a pen board, and since we're talking about the Supreme Court, here's a link to the SC supplying quill pens for attorneys at oral argument:
https://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/supreme_court_advocates_traditional_mementos

[Chuck Naill]

Law school isn't easy, so for me, I admire people who not only become an attorney, but rise to the level of a Supreme Court Justice. And, especially those who are able to argue a case before the court. I know there are bad players, so no need to remind me of them.

I liked the quill pen story. 24 pens...wow.

[Chip]

Since this Forum is part of a pen board, and since we're talking about the Supreme Court, here's a link to the SC supplying quill pens for attorneys at oral argument.

Heartwarming. What's next?

https://i.imgur.com/bQygOyw.jpg

[Chuck Naill]

Good that the judges look look us.

[kazoolaw]

Montana Bar Association?

[Chuck Naill]

Harley Owner Group

[Chip]

Federalist Society?

[Chuck Naill]

BLM

[kazoolaw]

Back to our regularly scheduled programming:
Who receives the millions of doallars being raised to support Judge Jackson's nomination?

[Chuck Naill]

I was not aware money is raised for Supreme Court nominees, so I looked it up. Some headlines say it is from "dark money". Dark Money to support a black nominee. Interesting.

[Chip]

Who receives the millions of doallars being raised to support Judge Jackson's nomination?


Is a doallar worth more than a dollar?

Question 2: Who receives millions in RWW dark money to compensate Justice Clarence Thomas for his already biased voting record?

A: His wife, Ginni.

https://media.newyorker.com/photos/61e9e13dabe3c31afa84d17f/master/w_1600,c_limit/220131_r39772.jpg

[kazoolaw]

The exchange rate is currently 1 = 1.
An excursion off-topic worthy of CN.

[TSherbs]

ABA rating for Judge Brown: "well qualified" (its highest rating). Based on these criteria (from Axios):

>>>The ABA, which "confines its evaluation to the qualities of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament," unanimously agreed that Jackson is "well qualified," committee chair Ann Claire Williams wrote in a letter to the chair and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.<<<

[Chuck Naill]

ABA rating for Judge Brown: "well qualified" (its highest rating). Based on these criteria (from Axios):

>>>The ABA, which "confines its evaluation to the qualities of integrity, professional competence, and judicial temperament," unanimously agreed that Jackson is "well qualified," committee chair Ann Claire Williams wrote in a letter to the chair and ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.<<<

I've read the Trumpian members of Congress are gearing up.

[TSherbs]

AP fact-checking of some GOP statements against Judge Brown:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/ap-fact-check-republicans-twist-jacksons-judicial-record

[Chip]

Hawley is a mendacious little weasel.

There are worse folks in the Republican ranks, but not by much.

[kazoolaw]

ABA rating for Judge Brown: "well qualified" (its highest rating). ...

Lawyers and judges who spoke with the ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary had high praise for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett.

Barrett is “an intellectual giant” with a “staggering academic mind” who is “decent, selfless and sincere.” She has a “stellar judicial temperament” who shows no sarcasm in her questioning.

That kind of praise led the ABA standing committee to conclude that Barrett met the highest standards of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament, the three criteria used in its ratings of federal judicial nominees.

Barrett received a “well qualified” rating, the committee’s highest rating, from a substantial majority of the committee.


Barrett earned plaudits on all three criteria of integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament, Noel said. The standing committee’s rating is not based on Barrett’s philosophy, political affiliation or ideology.

First, in the committee’s evaluation of Barrett’s integrity, lawyers and judges were uniform in their praise, Noel said in the prepared testimony. “Most remarkably, in interviews with individuals in the legal profession and community who know Judge Barrett, whether for a few years or decades, not one person uttered a negative word about her character.”

Noel offered some representative comments, including:

• Barrett “is incredibly honest and forthright.”

• Barrett “is exactly who you think she is,” and, “Nothing about her is fake.” She is “good, decent, selfless and sincere.”

• “A casual observer might think that she sounds ‘too good’ to be real, but she is very genuine.”

• Barrett is an “exemplar of living an integrated life in which her intellect, integrity and compassion weave the different threads of her life together seamlessly.”

Second, the committee found that Barrett’s professional competence exceeded the committee’s high standards for Supreme Court nominees.

“All of the experienced, dedicated and knowledgeable sitting judges, legal scholars, and lawyers who have worked with or against Judge Barrett had high praise for her intellect and ability to communicate clearly and effectively,” Noel said in the prepared testimony.

These were among the comments he cited:

• “From an early age Judge Barrett’s scholarship was evident; an award-winning student, top of her class in college and law school, in addition to being an executive editor of the law review.”

• Barrett is “whip smart, highly productive, punctual and well-prepared.”

• “A brilliant writer and thinker,” Barrett is also “quite pragmatic.” She has a “friendly, collegial demeanor and is respectful of everyone.”

• Judge Barrett is “an intellectual giant with people skills and engaging warmth.”

• “The myth is real. She is a staggering academic mind.”

Third, Noel said lawyers and judges alike had praise for Barrett’s temperament. Some comments included:

• “She was always willing to be helpful and engage with others on a topic even when she had a different philosophy and when she writes in dissent, she is very collegial.”

• Barrett “never raises her voice and there is no hint of sarcasm in her questioning. She is also a good listener.”

• Barrett is “kind, caring and compassionate.” She is “extremely well-liked by faculty and students universally.”

• Barrett “has demonstrated stellar judicial temperament in all settings: She is often described as a ‘good listener’ who makes time for people, whether they are law students, law clerks, colleagues or friends.”

[kazoolaw]

Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh earned the highest rating of unanimously “well qualified,” members of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday.
“We concluded that his integrity, judicial temperament, and professional competence met the highest standards for appointment to the court,” said Paul T. Moxley of Salt Lake City, the chair of the committee. “Our rating of unanimously well-qualified reflects the consensus of his peers who have knowledge of his professional qualifications.”

John R. Tarpley of Nashville, the standing committee’s representative for the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Court of Appeals and the lead evaluator, said the panel found that Kavanaugh “enjoys an excellent reputation for integrity and is a person of outstanding character. It was clear from all or our interviews and all of the other evidence that he learned the importance of integrity from a very early age.”


Always consider the source, left or right.

[Chip]

[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh". . . he learned the importance of integrity from a very early age.”

Did you listen to the hearings? What an entitled, sniveling, whiny, self-pitying creature. Besides being a drunken rapist in his youth.

Perfect Republican nominee.

[kazoolaw]

First, you made my point about people only accepting a source if it agrees with them. [There is a subpoint to my posts about the ABA.]
Second, you have mistaken invective for debate.
Third, it's not what a witness says, ibutwhether what they say is credible. Yes, I reviewed the statements of Ms. Ford and found them to lack credibility. And that without cross examination.

[Chuck Naill]

[FONT=Book Antiqua][SIZE=3]Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh". . . he learned the importance of integrity from a very early age.”

Did you listen to the hearings? What an entitled, sniveling, whiny, self-pitying creature. Besides being a drunken rapist in his youth.

Perfect Republican nominee.

I admit to being surprised that he ia/was considered a person of integrity since youth. Just because a female accused him of sexual assault, during his youth, does not make it true, but that she would risk so much to make the accusation is impressive.

[Chip]

I listened to the whole proceeding. I found her not only credible but restrained and dignified, given the vicious attack on her character by Republicans.

Kavanaugh was contemptible. I wouldn't let him rake up the dog poop in my yard. Wonder if he confessed?

Forgive me Father, for me and my school buds raped this dumb chick, ha ha ha!

What sort of penance would you lay on him? It obviously made no impression.

[TSherbs]

I listened to the whole proceeding. I found her not only credible but restrained and dignified, given the vicious attack on her character by Republicans.

Kavanaugh was contemptible. I wouldn't let him rake up the dog poop in my yard. Wonder if he confessed?

Forgive me Father, for me and my school buds raped this dumb chick, ha ha ha!

What sort of penance would you lay on him? It obviously made no impression.

I couldn't care less if he confessed to a representative of the American Catholic hierarchy, one of the most vile, corrupt institutions in contemporary American history.

But to his God, directly? I hope so.

Ford was courageous, dignified. Kavanaugh was a spoiled brat, oozing privilege and effrontery, acting like the job was owed him.

[TSherbs]

Ted Cruz is a git.

[Chip]

Ted Cruz is a git.

https://i.imgur.com/0RdtVEG.jpg

[kazoolaw]

Chip, I concede: you fully occupy the low ground.

[TSherbs]

After Ted Cruz's idiotic smear of Judge Jackson in the hearing, the Rep National Committee tweeted out her picture with her initials crossed out and "CRT" written underneath.

What a debasement of an honorable person and an honorable academic pursuit!

[Chuck Naill]

Perhaps if Cruz were a member here, he would be on most peoples ignore list.

[kazoolaw]

TS-
Please provide a link to the smear. I've been too busy working to watch.

[kazoolaw]

I gather one of the questions in Post 164 was asked and answered.
[/SIZE]

[Chip]

Chip, I concede: you fully occupy the low ground.


While you lurk beneath it.

https://i.imgur.com/lKl8WXu.jpg

[TSherbs]

What's up with Lindsey's tantrum? Is he just upset that Biden has put forth a nominee with strong character, even back through her early adult years? What a baby.

Please note that no scurrilous charges about potential criminal behavior in Coney Barrett's past was brought up, likely because she did not actually engage in any (the Dems would not have spared her on that if they had found anything). Same with Jackson. Many persons on the right (including Graham) are grandstanding and drawing false equivalencies between these various recent nominees, as if they should all be treated the same when their pasts ARE NOT THE SAME. As was the case with Coney Barrett, and now with Jackson, it is these female nominees who are conducting themselves with dignity while the various elected senators, mostly men, conduct themselves like snake-tongued brats.

The circus show is in full carnival mode, with a house of horrors.

[TSherbs]

I know that this is off topic, but it is related. After all this left and right argument business recedes a bit, all I am usually left with is that the problem is....men (not *only* men, but *mostly* men). We fuck up politics, we fuck up religion, we initiate and conduct war and genocide and other forms of inhumanity, we fuck up families, we fuck up ourselves and even kill each other and ourselves in staggering numbers. I am periodically embarassed and ashamed of being male (including for my own behaviors). We make excuses for ourselves, pretend that our point of view is the correct way to understand and reason, and then try to exert these (often flawed) forms of thinking on others, often through intimidation or coercion. It's really pretty disgusting. If we all had some sort of boss above us, we men would be fired from so many positions of power and authority. And would deserve it.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I've been watching some of the hearings but I am somewhat hampered by low level understanding of US politics. While there has been quite a bit of regular and, what I would imagine to be, expected inquiry, it is the other bits that I don't get. Why are the members allowed to be adversarial when the nominee appears not to be allowed to respond in kind? There were times during Graham's questioning when, if I had been the nominee, I would have been sorely pressed not to stand up, tell him to shut his pie hole and behave with the dignity expected of his office. Same goes for a few others too. Kudos to Jackson for keeping calm but surely she must have been thinking are these really the questions you should be asking. Some of the lines of questioning have been utterly ridiculous. Like the whole religious line. I mean, seriously?

I appreciate that people like Graham and Hawley are grandstanding for their own political futures.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I know that this is off topic, but it is related. After all this left and right argument business recedes a bit, all I am usually left with is that the problem is....men (not *only* men, but *mostly* men). We fuck up politics, we fuck up religion, we initiate and conduct war and genocide and other forms of inhumanity, we fuck up families, we fuck up ourselves and even kill each other and ourselves in staggering numbers. I am periodically embarassed and ashamed of being male (including for my own behaviors). We make excuses for ourselves, pretend that our point of view is the correct way to understand and reason, and then try to exert these (often flawed) forms of thinking on others, often through intimidation or coercion. It's really pretty disgusting. If we all had some sort of boss above us, we men would be fired from so many positions of power and authority. And would deserve it.

As simplistic as my post will be, it is my opinion that much of this is attributable to the fundamental characteristics of males and females in our species. Males are aggressive, combative, hierarchical creatures. Females tend to be more constructive, inclusive, and growth-oriented creatures.

[kazoolaw]

Chip, I concede: you fully occupy the low ground.
While you lurk beneath it.

Sorry Chip,
The abyss is looking into you.

[TSherbs]

I know that this is off topic, but it is related. After all this left and right argument business recedes a bit, all I am usually left with is that the problem is....men (not *only* men, but *mostly* men). We fuck up politics, we fuck up religion, we initiate and conduct war and genocide and other forms of inhumanity, we fuck up families, we fuck up ourselves and even kill each other and ourselves in staggering numbers. I am periodically embarassed and ashamed of being male (including for my own behaviors). We make excuses for ourselves, pretend that our point of view is the correct way to understand and reason, and then try to exert these (often flawed) forms of thinking on others, often through intimidation or coercion. It's really pretty disgusting. If we all had some sort of boss above us, we men would be fired from so many positions of power and authority. And would deserve it.

As simplistic as my post will be, it is my opinion that much of this is attributable to the fundamental characteristics of males and females in our species. Males are aggressive, combative, hierarchical creatures. Females tend to be more constructive, inclusive, and growth-oriented creatures.

My post was simplistic, too. Just venting. And of course, there are many many better men than I am discribing. But I think that it is time to let more women fill and run our government and our courts and our churches. Men have had their turn. I give us a D.

[TSherbs]

So, Lindsey acted like a total rude jerk again and stormed off again. Vote that shit out of his office.

Problem is, and this goes to EOC's question, being a rude embarrassment doesn't disqualify you from elected office in America. Indeed, plenty of folks are thrilled by it. America has never been known for its class or sophistication.

[Chuck Naill]

Ted Cruz quoting Dr. King is onerous. What is it these white men are so afraid of regarding the true American history? While today we condemn Putin's war, but it was white American's who invaded Native American/People's lands for the same reasons, that those nations were not legitimate. Remember the Alamo was for the purpose of making it a slave state.

Given that Cruz's political party represents the minority of American electorate and thought, his tactics might just be attention seeking. He should take another vacation.

[Bold2013]

I thank God for both men and women equally as they both bear His image. I hope we can avoid conflating human depravity with the created order (this is happening with so many things now a days).

[Chuck Naill]

I thank God for both men and women equally as they both bear His image. I hope we can avoid conflating human depravity with the created order (this is happening with so many things now a days).

Oddly, both Putin and Hitler used a Biblical concepts to justify their deeds. It is why liberal democracies are the only protection against authoritarian types. I wish it were that they believed Jesus' teachings, but sadly it is not.

[Bold2013]

Jesus preached authoritarianism… the sovereignty of God and the infallibility of His Word.

Chuck please realize we are much closer to Hitler/Putin than we are to Christ on a scale of righteousness.

[Chuck Naill]

You cannot love your neighbor as yourself and treat others as you would want to be treated and be authoritarian.

You’ve been misled.

[Chip]

I appreciate that people like Graham and Hawley are grandstanding for their own political futures.

They're peeing themselves to get a soundbite on Fox News (sic), the voice of the drooling class.

Sad to say, Jackson is likely practiced at enduring verbal assaults by racist scum.

[Chuck Naill]

Thomas’s wife is….:.

[TSherbs]

I was a bit curious about Sandra Day O'Connor so I did a bit of reading. Ronald Reagan, during his campaign in 1980 pledged to nominate a woman. He did so, in 1981. She was confirmed 99-0. Reagan was right to declare that he would break that ceiling, he was right to follow through on that pledge. The democrats agreed. What a different political world we live in today.

Those of you who think that Biden somehow diminished Judge Jackson or other female judges of color by stating ahead of time that he would break another glass ceiling with his nomination should examine your racial prejudices closely.

[dneal]

Those of you who think that Biden somehow diminished Judge Jackson or other female judges of color by stating ahead of time that he would break another glass ceiling with his nomination should examine your racial prejudices closely.

That's some twisted logic you're trying to sneak in there - but I'm not surprised.

It's federal law not to base hiring on race, gender, etc... (42 USC). If Biden promised to nominate a white man, it would be just as racist and sexist as promising to nominate a black woman. This shit ain't hard to understand.

[Bold2013]

Reagan was sexist in his nomination
Biden is sexist and racist in his

[Chip]

Reagan was sexist in his nomination
Biden is sexist and racist in his

Amazing how you can twist something straightforward to fit your distorted view of things.

But given your other delusions—an authoritarian Jesus— I'm not surprised.

https://i.imgur.com/WDmQ05y.jpg

[TSherbs]

Reagan was sexist in his nomination
Biden is sexist and racist in his

Amazing how you can twist something straightforward to fit your distorted view of things.

But given your other delusions—an authoritarian Jesus— I'm not surprised.

https://i.imgur.com/WDmQ05y.jpg

You have to agree, though, that the traditional view of the Jewish god is authoritarian. Even tyrannical, exacting, and genocidal. But that is only if you take the Torah literally. There are other ways that Jews (and Christians) read this material.

[Chuck Naill]

In the sense that the rain, a good thing, falls on both the just and unjust, God is not acting as a human authoritarian. We also have free will. It is the autocrats that take away our free will. Of course there are unintended consequences and mistakes that we must face whether we meant to or not.

[Bold2013]

Reagan was sexist in his nomination
Biden is sexist and racist in his

Amazing how you can twist something straightforward to fit your distorted view of things.

But given your other delusions—an authoritarian Jesus— I'm not surprised.

https://i.imgur.com/WDmQ05y.jpg

You have to agree, though, that the traditional view of the Jewish god is authoritarian. Even tyrannical, exacting, and genocidal. But that is only if you take the Torah literally. There are other ways that Jews (and Christians) read this material.

John 5

45 “But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. 46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. 47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?”

Orthodox Christianity believes Jesus endorsed a literal reading of the Torah (The Law and the Prophets were the other books in the OT)

In fact He fulfilled the OT and raised the bar on the Laws

Matthew 5

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

[TSherbs]

[
Orthodox Christianity believes Jesus endorsed a literal reading of the Torah (The Law and the Prophets were the other books in the OT)

Yes. Other groups, making up the majority of Christians on the planet, do not. That was my point: some do, most don't.

Interestingly, most Jews do not read it literally, either.

[Bold2013]

It is a very fascinating subject indeed. One can see with all the ways people handle scripture no wonder so many have used/abused it for their evil endeavors (on both sides of the isle and up and down history).

[Chuck Naill]

They have also used/abused Darwin as well.

[TSherbs]

It is a very fascinating subject indeed. One can see with all the ways people handle scripture no wonder so many have used/abused it for their evil endeavors (on both sides of the isle and up and down history).

Including some of the literalists.

[Chip]

I have no quarrel with people believing as they wish.

But when they expect it to be treated as fact, or acting as if it were factual (e.g. killing or persecuting those who don't share their beliefs) then I take it as insanity.

[Bold2013]

They have also used/abused Darwin as well.

Darwin the racist…

[TSherbs]

They have also used/abused Darwin as well.

Darwin the racist…

Yes, he was.

But that is not why some Christians have fought his ideas. They have been fine with his racism (and anthrocentrism). But his science? That has been a much more difficult pill to swallow for biblical literalists.

[Bold2013]

TS. Agreed on all your recent responses.

[TSherbs]

Why can't the commentary in a Senate hearing be as intelligent, informed, and balanced as this piece? One reason is because some senators wouldn't let the nominee finish her answers. Another reason is that these hearings are political circus shows:

National Review: Josh Hawley Attacks on Judge Jackson Child-Porn Record Disingenuous.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/03/senator-hawleys-disingenuous-attack-against-judge-jacksons-record-on-child-pornography/

[Chuck Naill]

Those elected people don’t live the lives their constituents think they live. These hearings provide a way to appear they are just common folk. It’s as true across the aisle.

[Chuck Naill]

“ Thomas should never have been on the court. Now that we know his wife was plotting the overthrow of the government, he should get off or be thrown off. You can’t administer justice when your spouse is running around strategizing for a coup.”

From a M. Dowd oped

[Chuck Naill]

Did you hear about Ted Cruz checking Twitter during the hearing?