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/polit...ck-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/polit...ck-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.