Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer will retire

[ciaban2.0]

I see that Special has set himself up for a major hissy fit.

And while I grant that I am making a huge assumption given Special’s track record, but I nevertheless assume that Special already knows that one of Biden’s campaign promises was that if elected and if the opportunity arose, he would appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court.

So, if Biden does appoint a Black woman, Special (and his similarly-minded cretin cohort) will get pissy and whine and moan up one side of the wall and down the other that race and sex should not matter in these appointments.

However, should Biden not follow through, Special (and his cohort — see above) will get pissy and whine and moan up one side of the wall and down the other that the president does not keep his campaign promises.

I totally expect him to nominate a black woman, i think this IDPOL is silly, but w/e they should instead nominate the best candidate possible (being younger is more advantageous) if that happens to be a gay filipino or a refugee from Ethiopia then so be it.

[ciaban2.0]

We just assume when black candidate, who get a position over a white guy, were the less qualified person.. It isn't about qualification, that is a false flag, but making the position accessible to all groups. Don't automatically assume who is the most qualified is, sometime it isn't the white guy. I imagine for some that is a hard point to get around. We aren't dumbing down the system for racial equality.

This is the problem with IDPOL, when you have a guy like Biden saying he'll only consider "demographic X" then it's natural to assume that whoever is picked might not be the best candidate for the job, but just the best candidate from Demo-X, which is really unfair to that person.

[ciaban2.0]

A key hallmark of any joke is for it to actually be funny.

How would you know? You've never been funny?

[ciaban2.0]

DBroncos would want me on SCOTUS, I’m so young I’d serve at least 40 years!

You Slay Qwayne!

[valade16]

This is the problem with IDPOL, when you have a guy like Biden saying he'll only consider "demographic X" then it's natural to assume that whoever is picked might not be the best candidate for the job, but just the best candidate from Demo-X, which is really unfair to that person.

That was naturally going to be assumed anyway. Every minority candidate who has ever been selected has been accused of being selected because of their race and not their merits.

[natepro]

This is the problem with IDPOL, when you have a guy like Biden saying he'll only consider "demographic X" then it's natural to assume that whoever is picked might not be the best candidate for the job, but just the best candidate from Demo-X, which is really unfair to that person.

Why is it "natural to assume" that?

Why was it never assumed when white men were the only ones ever picked until Thurgood Marshall and Sandra Day O'Connor?

[ciaban2.0]

I would assume that she has the power, but this has never come up before, she might not. So if she doesn't, this could get interesting.

One thing were considering is oh, who will BIDEN pick, but they have to be confirmed, the president only nominates people.

If Kamala can't break a tie here, they might have to negotiate with republicans (or McConnel) on who the replacement is.
So we could end up getting someone older, or someone less progressive, or just not a black woman. Maybe a White Woman named Karen.

[Crovash]

I totally expect him to nominate a black woman, i think this IDPOL is silly, but w/e they should instead nominate the best candidate possible (being younger is more advantageous) if that happens to be a gay filipino or a refugee from Ethiopia then so be it.

There are zero — I repeat zero — members of the Supreme Court, now or ever, who were the “most qualified” or “the best possible” at the time of their confirmation.

You want to know why?

Because there is no viable standard whatsoever for “the best candidate possible” or the “most qualified”. Qualified, yes. Most qualified — negative.

This argument, as I said to Catman, is pathetic. In fact, it’s probably a smokescreen for something unsavory.
,

[ciaban2.0]

Why is it "natural to assume" that?

Why was it never assumed when white men were the only ones ever picked until Thurgood Marshall and Sandra Day O'Connor?

Because it was never stated by the president that he was only considering people from their demographics. People didn't assume that Clarance Thomas was unqualified because he was black.
Bush Sr never said he would only consider a black candidate.

He just picked a guy and they went with it.

[ciaban2.0]

There are zero — I repeat zero — members of the Supreme Court, now or ever, who were the “most qualified” or “the best possible” at the time of their confirmation.

You want to know why?

Because there is no viable standard whatsoever for “the best candidate possible” or the “most qualified”. Qualified, yes. Most qualified — negative.

This argument, as I said to Catman, is pathetic. In fact, it’s probably a smokescreen for something unsavory.
,

I would say Kagan wasn't qualified at all.

Here is the thing, your right, qualification is an inherently subjective definition, but once you give your definition, we can start eliminating people who don't meet the qualifications until we narrow down the candidacy.

So what do you think makes a candidate qualified, besides being young I guess.

What does Joe Biden think makes a candidate qualified?

Personally I think Daniel Cameron or Carlos Muñiz would do a great job.

[ciaban2.0]

That was naturally going to be assumed anyway. Every minority candidate who has ever been selected has been accused of being selected because of their race and not their merits.

Even Clarance Thomas?

[Walter_White]

You guys are honestly overthinking this a little to much, shouldn't their judicial records and opinions matter too? If not, then **** it put AOC on the supreme court.

Fine with me!

[valade16]

Because it was never stated by the president that he was only considering people from their demographics. People didn't assume that Clarance Thomas was unqualified because he was black.
Bush Sr never said he would only consider a black candidate.

He just picked a guy and they went with it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lat...ml%3f_amp=true

People did think Thomas was picked because he was black, and not just Democrats.

A writer for a conservative think tank at the time wrote Thomas’ selection was “a worse than tokenism choice”

And while Bush Sr never said he would only consider a black candidate, he did not consider any white male candidates and specifically removed them from the list of potential candidates.

[valade16]

Even Clarance Thomas?

See my above post. Yes, even Clarence Thomas’ candidacy was questioned based on his race.

[ciaban2.0]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lat...ml%3f_amp=true

People did think Thomas was picked because he was black, and not just Democrats.

A writer for a conservative think tank at the time wrote Thomas’ selection was “a worse than tokenism choice”

And while Bush Sr never said he would only consider a black candidate, he did not consider any white male candidates and specifically removed them from the list of potential candidates.

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/02/67275...rt-nominations

This is literally an interview with NPR from a guy who worked in Bush Sr's white house, and was part of the process.

MARTIN: And what about his being African-American, given that he was nominated to replace Thurgood Marshall? Was that deemed to be - was that a factor?

GRAY: It was a sort of a negative because the president didn't want to look like he was filling a quota.

MARTIN: So you're saying that the race factor came in, and that you thought - did you, the president thought that it might be negatively perceived to have an African-American candidate replacing the first African-American...

GRAY: No, no, no, no....

MARTIN: ...To sit on the court?

GRAY: ...That's...

MARTIN: No? I'm just trying to understand it. Yeah.

GRAY: Yeah. It's quite tricky. It's not the nomination of a minority would be controversial. It's that he didn't want to have the appearance that he was appointing a minority to replace a minority. You know, that was what was going on. And you have to remember that he knew Thomas before I did. He knew Thomas in some ways better than I knew him because he had worked with him in the Reagan administration, and he knew what Thomas was capable of. He knew how brilliant he was. And so he knew as much as any of us. That's unusual for a president to know a candidate that well. That's unusual.