swordfish Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 (edited) Sure is nice to know this President isn't going to be racist OR sexist with HIS pick for the SCOTUS.......🤣 https://nypost.com/2022/01/26/heres-who-biden-might-tap-to-replace-stephen-breyer-on-the-supreme-court/ President Biden pledged to pick a black woman as his first nominee to the US Supreme Court Edited January 27, 2022 by swordfish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 2 hours ago, swordfish said: Sure is nice to know this President isn't going to be racist OR sexist with HIS pick for the SCOTUS.......🤣 https://nypost.com/2022/01/26/heres-who-biden-might-tap-to-replace-stephen-breyer-on-the-supreme-court/ President Biden pledged to pick a black woman as his first nominee to the US Supreme Court Yep. Mr. Biden has fully embrace the progressive leftist scourge of identity/race politics. What a person looks like and how "woke" they are comes before their objective qualifications. Most of academia has succumbed to this regarding their hiring practices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish Posted January 27, 2022 Author Share Posted January 27, 2022 (edited) Here's a scary thought (far-fetched as it may be) 1) Biden nominates Harris to SCOTUS (assuming she passes the hearing process) 2) Biden picks Hillary for VP (and gets his pick through a simple majority of both houses of Congress) 3) Biden retires (or his presidency ends in any manner after January 20, 2022) 4) Hillary becomes the next President........ Boom....... Edited January 27, 2022 by swordfish 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted January 27, 2022 Share Posted January 27, 2022 Stephen Breyer's Retirement Is Good News for the Fourth Amendment https://reason.com/2022/01/27/stephen-breyers-retirement-is-good-news-for-the-fourth-amendment/ Quote When President Bill Clinton tapped Stephen Breyer to fill a vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court in 1994, he told the country that Breyer would be a justice who would "strike the right balance between the need for discipline and order, being firm on law enforcement issues but really sticking in there for the Bill of Rights." The news of Breyer's impending retirement at the close of the Supreme Court's current term gives us an opportunity to weigh Clinton's words against Breyer's record. Alas, the former president proved to be only half right. Breyer was certainly "firm" in his deference toward law enforcement. But that same judicial deference often led Breyer to do the opposite of "sticking in there for the Bill of Rights" when major Fourth Amendment cases arrived at SCOTUS. Take Navarette v. California (2014). At issue was an anonymous and uncorroborated 911 phone call about an allegedly dangerous driver which led the police to make a traffic stop that led to a drug bust. According to the 5–4 majority opinion of Justice Clarence Thomas, "the stop complied with the Fourth Amendment because, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the driver was intoxicated." Law enforcement won big and Breyer signed on. The deficiencies of that judgment were spelled out in a forceful dissent by Justice Antonin Scalia. "The Court's opinion serves up a freedom-destroying cocktail," wrote Scalia, who was joined in dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. "All the malevolent 911 caller need do is assert a traffic violation, and the targeted car will be stopped, forcibly if necessary, by the police." That disturbing scenario, Scalia wrote, "is not my concept, and I am sure it would not be the Framers', of a people secure from unreasonable searches and seizures." Breyer was apparently untroubled by that Fourth Amendment–shredding scenario. Notably, this was not the first time that Scalia was more "liberal" than Breyer in a 5–4 Fourth Amendment case. One year earlier, in Maryland v. King (2013), Breyer joined Justice Anthony Kennedy's controversial majority opinion allowing police to conduct warrantless DNA swab tests incident to arrest. "Make no mistake about it," Scalia protested in dissent, joined (again) by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. "As an entirely predictable consequence of today's decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason." Breyer was apparently untroubled by that disturbing scenario too. Breyer's retirement will be good news for the Fourth Amendment as long as President Joe Biden picks a replacement who resembles Scalia more than Breyer in these sorts of cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish Posted January 28, 2022 Author Share Posted January 28, 2022 From a friend: (Tell me he's wrong if you can) PBS news last night: "Scotus needs a black woman appointed because black people and women are 'underrepresented' on the court.” The statement is a lie. 1) The court is not a “representative" body. Congress is the representative body. The court is intended to be a meritocracy where “representative make-up” is immaterial. To think the members of the court must be representative is illogical, zero sum thinking, assuming the impossibility of human “color blindness”. Tell that to the “white" congress that passed the civil rights acts of 1965. 2) Congress is to be a representative body where elected “representatives” of various minorities have a voice, and sometimes a veto: filibuster. 3) The first SCOTUS limitation is that all appointees must be lawyers. 25% of all lawyers are female. 5% are black and 5% are hispanic. 4)One justice represents 11% of the court. Therefore, women (33%), black (11%) and Hispanic (11%) justices are overrepresented on the court compared to peers in the legal profession, not underrepresented. 5) Population is immaterial, but what about it? Is the court a “cross section” of the population or a cesspool of underrepresentation? Hispanics are about 18% of the US population and 11% of the court. Blacks are about 13% of the population and 11% of the court. Women are about 50.5% of the population and 33% of the court.. Since the court has 1 black, 3 females and one for sure Hispanic, and since one must have a whole justice and not a fractional justice: Blacks are “represented", Hispanics are less but still “represented" and women, seemingly “underrepresented". There are lots of reasons why the numbers do not support the underrepresentation of women claim. Apart from childbirth, the single most significant factor is that the percentage of women who choose to seek law as a career, although growing, is relatively much smaller that the number of men. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobref Posted January 29, 2022 Share Posted January 29, 2022 5 hours ago, swordfish said: The court is not a “representative" body. Congress is the representative body. The court is intended to be a meritocracy where “representative make-up” is immaterial. To think the members of the court must be representative is illogical, zero sum thinking, assuming the impossibility of human “color blindness”. Tell that to the That is true, as far as it goes. But keep in mind that all power ultimately flows from the people. And the legitimacy of the Court flows from the belief by the people that the Court is an unbiased interpreter of the law. To the extent the people view the Court - and thus, it’s rulings — as being fair and unbiased, they have legitimacy. It is easier to believe objectivity and lack of bias when the Court is constructed so that diverse viewpoints are brought to bear on the issues. Diversity in race, culture, political viewpoints, background, etc., on the Court is a valuable thing, and a perfectly appropriate factor to take into account when choosing a Justice. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish Posted January 31, 2022 Author Share Posted January 31, 2022 On 1/28/2022 at 9:17 PM, Bobref said: That is true, as far as it goes. But keep in mind that all power ultimately flows from the people. And the legitimacy of the Court flows from the belief by the people that the Court is an unbiased interpreter of the law. To the extent the people view the Court - and thus, it’s rulings — as being fair and unbiased, they have legitimacy. It is easier to believe objectivity and lack of bias when the Court is constructed so that diverse viewpoints are brought to bear on the issues. Diversity in race, culture, political viewpoints, background, etc., on the Court is a valuable thing, and a perfectly appropriate factor to take into account when choosing a Justice. On 1/27/2022 at 8:56 AM, swordfish said: Sure is nice to know this President isn't going to be racist OR sexist with HIS pick for the SCOTUS.......🤣 https://nypost.com/2022/01/26/heres-who-biden-might-tap-to-replace-stephen-breyer-on-the-supreme-court/ President Biden pledged to pick a black woman as his first nominee to the US Supreme Court Isn't that Prejudice the very essence of "Racist AND Sexist"? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irishman Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 55 minutes ago, swordfish said: Isn't that Prejudice the very essence of "Racist AND Sexist"? Honest question......was this one sexist? https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/oconnor.html The problem with the accusation is it implies that the nominee will somehow be less qualified for the position. The fact is there are a LOT of people that are highly qualified. In that group, there are a LOT of minority females who are highly qualified. This really should not even been an issue honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goose Liver Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 On 1/27/2022 at 12:37 PM, swordfish said: Here's a scary thought (far-fetched as it may be) 1) Biden nominates Harris to SCOTUS (assuming she passes the hearing process) 2) Biden picks Hillary for VP (and gets his pick through a simple majority of both houses of Congress) 3) Biden retires (or his presidency ends in any manner after January 20, 2022) 4) Hillary becomes the next President........ Boom....... Bizarre, but possible, far-fetched for sure. Stranger things have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish Posted January 31, 2022 Author Share Posted January 31, 2022 2 hours ago, Irishman said: Honest question......was this one sexist? https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/oconnor.html The problem with the accusation is it implies that the nominee will somehow be less qualified for the position. The fact is there are a LOT of people that are highly qualified. In that group, there are a LOT of minority females who are highly qualified. This really should not even been an issue honestly. Honest answer - Yep. By narrowing the field to a specific sex, Regan eliminated a large portion of qualified personnel....... Was it the right call? Yep. (IMHO) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muda69 Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, Irishman said: Honest question......was this one sexist? https://www.archives.gov/legislative/features/oconnor.html The problem with the accusation is it implies that the nominee will somehow be less qualified for the position. The fact is there are a LOT of people that are highly qualified. In that group, there are a LOT of minority females who are highly qualified. This really should not even been an issue honestly. But why does Mr. Biden have to use the criteria "minority females" as the starting point for a supreme court justice search? Why is Black Women A automatically included in this search and White Woman B is discounted, when both are "highly qualified"? Why can't just Person A and Person B both be the pool of potential candidates? Edited January 31, 2022 by Muda69 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irishman Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 3 hours ago, swordfish said: Honest answer - Yep. By narrowing the field to a specific sex, Regan eliminated a large portion of qualified personnel....... Was it the right call? Yep. (IMHO) OK, but Reagan caught no flack back then when he said it, and when the nomination came up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swordfish Posted January 31, 2022 Author Share Posted January 31, 2022 2 hours ago, Irishman said: OK, but Reagan caught no flack from the left back then when he said it, and when the nomination came up. FIFY..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irishman Posted January 31, 2022 Share Posted January 31, 2022 12 minutes ago, swordfish said: FIFY..... So you are saying he did catch flack from the right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts