I do, but it was discussed more when Kavanaugh was being considered. I saw more than one person opining that Trump was smart not to use Barrett for this seat, in order to save her nomination for RBG's eventual demise. The idea being that a woman's seat must remain with a woman.
She was a diversity hire for the same reason Biden's pick is going to be a diversity hire. The position was only open to people of her sex. That doesn't mean Barrett was unqualified. It doesn't mean Biden's nominee will be unqualified. However, it does mean that a huge group of potential nominees (white guys) was excluded from the competition for no reason other than their race and sex.
That was stated? I am not arguing, I am trying to understand. I see these assertions from you, but I don't remember those things ever being said anywhere.
IIRC correctly Trump said he had 5 worthy final candidates that were women. I don't think he ever said it HAD to be a woman like biden is saying it has to be a black woman.' biden said it as soon as Breyer announced.
“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman.” “I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men.” In an employment context, this kind of comments of would get you sued. And again, that's not a rip on Barret or a defense of Biden, but reality is what it is. Biden's nominee will be a "diversity hire," but we do it too.
But Trump didn't promise he would appoint a white women like Biden promised it would be a black woman Were people calling on Trump to appoint a white woman? Trump announced it would be a women after he announced he had 5 candidates.Who were the 5. Don't forget Biden promised during his campaign he would nominate a black woman,
Would it be too far-fetched to appoint the most qualified person? Perhaps one with experience and knowledge rather than a token? Naw, not the American way.
ACB was appointed to the Circuit Court of Appeals <1yr before Kavanaugh was nominated to SCOTUS. Prior to that Kavanaugh spent ~12 years on the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Who gets to define "most qualified person"? I see it as a pool of qualified candidates based on experience and knowledge. All else being equal it's entirely appropriate to pick a Black woman or an Indian man or a Hispanic woman or.....
There were a lot of people more experienced and qualified than Clarence Thomas but he was qualified and got the appointment. And I think he has been very capable there are a thousand lawyers who could do a good job making decisions on the SC one of them is going to get appointed people need to relax. Presidents make picks for all kinds of reasons. I didn’t care for Sotomayor but the President did. I got over it
It would be one thing if Biden et al actually considered a broad diverse selection of candidates ( black men and women, white men and women, Hispanic men and women Asian men and women) and Then announced his nominee was a black woman. But he campaigned with the Promise of choosing a black woman.
Trump took his list directly from the Federalist Society, abdicating his own responsibility. This was done to get their support for POTUS. He wasn't a bastion "casting the net wide". POTUS pick their nominees for a variety of reasons, nearly all political since the 80's at least.
Well, it depends on how we define and measure justice. If you define it along group lines, then this mentality makes sense. If whites were a favored group for a long time, then who cares what happens to an individual white guy? Screw him. Basically, we should set up broad qualifications and then force a quota at least to the extent possible. However, virtually the entire civil rights framework is based on the assumption that race is an arbitrary characteristic that shouldn't be considered in general. The immediate goal of the Civil Rights Act and 14th Amendment may have been to aid black Americans because they were typically the immediate target of race discrimination when the laws were written. However, the policy argument and the political compromise behind both a laws was universal, and it was written with universal language (though neither had to be). Race discrimination against anyone is illegal and an injustice. Furthermore, the entire system is built around people being judged and treated as individuals. To bring a case in court, basic standing requires that you personally suffered an injustice - not "your people" (whatever that means) in general. So you can be on the side of Ibram X. Kendi and Robin D'Angelo (and therefore only care about discrimination if it involves a favored group and in fact support race discrimination against disfavored groups) or on the side of the Constitution, Civil Rights Act, and the rule of law but not both. They are diametrically opposed.
Trump didn't be cast his net wide, but this isn't a fair characterization of how judicial nominees have been picked since the 1980s. The Fed Society has definitely had influence since Reagan. That is true, but if we're talking about ideological diversity, Republicans have been wildly more diverse than Democrats have been. Prior to Trump, Republicans appointed conservatives (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Rehnquist), moderates (O'Connor and Kennedy), a right-leaning moderate (Roberts), and a liberal (Souter, also Stevens if we go back to Ford). Democrats haven't appointed a conservative since before the New Deal. All of FDR's appointments were partisan Democrats from a purely political angle, and they would all rubber stamp his particular agenda, but there were was some diversity beyond that. None were conservative, but Hugo Black and William O. Douglas were not similar. JFK appointed a moderate in Byron White. Every Democratic nominee since has been a very solid liberal. They aren't all identical, but they're close. There's a hell of a lot more room between Anthony Kennedy (and especially David Souter) and Clarence Thomas than there is between Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. The point is that if we're judging how wide the net is, Democrats may not have a public organization comparable to the Fed Society, but they have a process in place to pick nominees that is keeping the net at least as narrow. Their record of ideological consistency and uniformity is much stronger at least for the last 50 years. Another thing, we really don't know what Trump's nominees will be like - not for sure. I suspect that Gorsuch will be a pretty reliable conservative (though he voted with the liberals on reading transgenderism into the Civil Rights Act - can't imagine any liberal justice departing that far from the orthodoxy). Barrett likely will too with a few hiccups along the way. Kavanaugh? As much **** as he took when he was nominated, his record wasn't that of a militant conservative. It frankly looked slightly to the right of his predecessor - about like Roberts. So your point isn't totally wrong, but like I say to Switzer, remove the plank. Let's see a Democrat appoint someone who isn't a solid liberal (like Republicans have appointed many who aren't solid conservatives, and then they'll have the right to complain about the Fed Society.
I think one big issue with that is that when liberal presidents nominate someone to the court, it's always playing "catch-up" to existing conservatives on there. When conservatives nominated someone over the past 60 years, they typically had the majority and didn't need to pack. Merrick Garland wasn't ultra-left. He actually swerved on a couple of "do whatever you want with your business" rulings. But we all know he was never going to be confirmed, because, you know. It seems as though your position is "we threw you guys a couple of bones 30-40 years ago, so it's time to even the score" when we all know that there's no chance of a current-day GOP administration even coming close to the next Souter or Kennedy in any sort of nomination, even to a lower court. Or getting elected to the state supreme court. They'd nominate Trump to a circuit court before a moderate.
Respectfully, I'm not sure where you've been, but liberals dominated the Court from about 1938 until about 1982 and wildly rewrote the constitutional order. Sometimes they were right - not in terms of policy outcomes but from a legal standpoint. Frequently they were wrong. You had a few moderates in that group like Berger, Harlan, and White (though they never commanded a majority), but Rehnquist was the only conservative on the Court during that time. The Right is the one who has been playing catch-up, and for the last fifty years, they've only batted about .500. Democrats have batted 1.000. They never miss. Actually I'm not saying that at all. Stevens, Souter, Kennedy, O'Connor, and Robers weren't bones. They are who Republican presidents thought would do a respectable job, and sometimes they did. Often, they didn't. You're right. The GOP will never nominate another Souter, beacuse the activist base isn't going to tolerate anymore screw-ups. (They could very well have nominated a Kennedy in Kavanaugh.) However, a Democrat hasn't made a similar nomination in our parents' lifetimes, much less ours. Furthermore, they are willing to nominate flagrant activists. Hell, RBG was a general counsel to the ACLU, and Thurgood Marshall was the top lawyer for the NAACP. That would be like a Republican appointing Jay Sekulow to the Supreme Court. Not gonna happen. As I've said before, ultimately what I want is for the Court to revisit and reconsider its role. Nominations shouldn't be this high-stakes, but until the Court decides that it's not going to be final arbiter on all major social and cultural issues, nothing is going to change. It needs to yield to the political branches, and we need federalism to make a colossal comeback. Right-leaning states need to be able to govern as they see fit including on social issues. Left-leaning states need to be able to do the same. The judicial but lawless busybodyism needs to end.
Deez What was so funny about my post pointing out Biden's campaign promise to nominate a black woman?
There is no dissent that can be spoken to a Liberal. What is patently obvious must be denied and it's adherence must be destroyed. That's Liberalism. That's what 82 million people voted for. They asked for idealism without pause; law without a source; speech without a brain. Georgetown Suspends Lecturer Who Criticized Vow to Put Black Woman on Court
It's the mental contortions you're willing to engage in to rationalize what's pretty clear hypocrisy that I find humorous and sad all at the same time. It reminds me of a black chick I remember hearing back in the '90s. She wouldn't condemn OJ Simpson because she said, "I didn't see him do it."
Solipsism... the only thing that is real is what is known to me. So, does that mean racism doesn't exist because I've never witnessed it as it is described by those who have?
But the opposite of "flagrant activists" is something to consider as well, as it's its own form of activism. I think part of your lens kind of overlooks that the Rehnquist-era contemporaries are arguably the most conservative to ever sit on the SC. So comparing the Warren era to... basically anything before or after Nixon... doesn't follow the trends that were historically set from any other era. Even the New Deal had some opposition from the moderates. Everyone from WR to Scalia to Thomas would just revert everything into some kind of confederation utopia of unaffiliated political leanings and allowing states to do whatever to whomever. I think what you're describing in your last paragraph is Taney era. Some people are fine with that. Probably because they have the means to be fine with it.
Activist: A Liberal majority either banning "arms" or ruling that only the national guard can possess "arms" because they are the militia and are well-regulated (either as a unit that is a team or because the law must regulate who can own "arms"). I have no doubt this would happen.
There are literally people on this board who said they should be able to have nukes to counter the nukes from the government.
I agree. If Jay Sekulow or someone of his background was on the Court, I would share your concern. But they aren't. They look conservative next to the Warren Era and the New Deal justices. By prior standards, they wouldn't be especially conservative. Yes, it did but not from FDR appointees. They would overturn bad precedent from the Warren Era. There's no evidence that they'd revert to a Taney-era in which states could act without legal authority. That's preposterous and baseless. Actually Taney's biggest error followed the same rational that the Court applied in Roe. He brought an agenda and forced it through lawless activism - like the modern leftist justice would. And what I'm suggesting is simply following the written law. It has nothing to do with "means," but either way, the job of the Court is to enforce the law as it's written - not to force an outcome to reach its policy preference or its own sense of justice.
I didn't vote for that. I don't think Seattle did either. So, 81,999,998 is more accurate. Maybe your math is more off than even that...
