SCOTUS and whatnot

[buddha]

3 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Just thinking a little more about this, maybe it's the fact that Biden put it out there a little more up front. But still, the same thing happened prior to O'Connor's selection.

It'd be one thing if this were unprecedented, but it isn't.... I don't see the issue.

its not an issue to me.  its just partisan politics, imo.  biden made it a point in his campaigning to add more minority justices to the bench and he has done that in a very big way.

trump had a list of "federalist society approved" justices when he was elected and the democrats went after them for it.  yadda yadda yadda, rinse repeat.

[1776]

6 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Right, this isn't exactly without precedence.

But doesn’t anybody see the hypocrisy or irony in this? Every employer, be they private, public, whatever, states front and center in bold print that hiring processes/practices will not discriminate on the basis of (you know the rest of the song). Any violations of this song & dance and the Feds are knocking on the door, rightfully so. 
Regardless of the past, at what point do we stop basing decisions on race, any race! It’s the hypocrisy and double standard that I object to. When do we, as a nation, get beyond making race or sex a part of conversations regarding hiring practices and selections? I know it won’t be in my lifetime. 

 

[mtutiger]

7 minutes ago, 1776 said:

But doesn’t anybody see the hypocrisy or irony in this? Every employer, be they private, public, whatever, states front and center in bold print that hiring processes/practices will not discriminate on the basis of (you know the rest of the song). 

 

From Section 2302(b), Title 5:

Quote

any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve personnel actions may not: Discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, or political affiliation.

So, basically, if that's your standard, then basically every single SCOTUS appointment in history fails it.

Edited January 27, 2022 by mtutiger

[mtutiger]

On the bigger point, the Constitution grants the Executive the power to select who they want for a SCOTUS appointment, and grants the Senate advice and consent. it doesn't say anything about rationale or whether those nominations meet modern labor law standards. And, in theory, if the nominee the POTUS select doesn't meet seem qualified or meet a high standard, the Senate should be able to exercise a check on that selection, as has been done a number of times in history.

And, again, there is a precedent here that has been set multiple times. I'm just not surprised that only now are we hearing objections to this precedent.... and as buddha suggests, it reeks of partisanship.

Edited January 27, 2022 by mtutiger

[buddha]

they've known for a long time who they are going to nominate for the court.  they've probably discussed it with breyer already too.  the fbi is surely doing background checks as we speak to confirm the results of the background checks the democrats conducted before they anonymously  released their list of names of potential candidates to the press.

[1776]

30 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

And, again, there is a precedent here that has been set multiple times. I'm just not surprised that only now are we hearing objections to this precedent.... and as buddha suggests, it reeks of partisanship.

If anyone is suggesting my motive for speaking up on this issue is based on partisanship -wrong. I think I have made the purpose of my objections clear. The basis of my objections here have nothing to do with political preferences. 

[1776]

1 hour ago, mtutiger said:

any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend or approve personnel actions may not: Discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, or political affiliation.

…and then there is the real world. 

[mtutiger]

8 minutes ago, 1776 said:

…and then there is the real world. 

I'm sure that you would find a lot of people who agree with this sentiment in terms of the provisions on race and sex as well.

Either way, if this is your standard, every nominee would fail. 

Edited January 27, 2022 by mtutiger

[pfife]

I don't think it's wrong to intentionally select a black woman because she's a black woman.  I think it's way more wrong one has (oftentimes intentionally) never been selected before.

Edited January 27, 2022 by pfife

[1776]

17 hours ago, CMRivdogs said:

NYT is reporting that Rep Clyburn is suggesting J Michelle Childs 

 

Very interesting article. Clyburn makes some good points. Born in Detroit…is she a Tigers fan? Fans want to know.

Edited January 27, 2022 by 1776

[CMRivdogs]

36 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Very interesting article. Clyburn makes some good points. Born in Detroit…is she a Tigers fan? Fans want to know.

Looking at her bio, it looks like she spent a lot of time in SC. I would bet on the Braves. They could be her second team however.

 

[Crazy Cat Gentleman]

5 hours ago, 1776 said:

Very interesting article. Clyburn makes some good points. Born in Detroit…is she a Tigers fan? Fans want to know.

what's her position on the constitutionality of Legendary Lloyd coming back to manage the Hens?

[pfife]

LOL @ CSPAN playing quotes from Trump regarding saving Amy Corney Barnett for the RBG seat and also Trumpers not liking the selection made based on demographics

[Archie]

Branco has been nailing it lately...

[chasfh]

Lol “Americans for White Government”

[Tigerbomb13]

“Nailing it”

[Jim Cowan]

Trusted impartial sources.

 

[buddha]

this is so dumb.  supreme court justices are picked for political and "identity" reasons all the time!  almost every one of them!  acb was picked because she was a woman to replace a woman.  clarence thomas was picked because he was a black guy to replace a black guy.  southerners were picked because they were southerners to placate the south.  liberals from certain states were picked to placate liberals from those states.

its happened forever.  its happened from conservatives.  its happened from liberals.  this is nothing new and nothing different.  

everyone biden is talking about selecting is "qualified" to be on the court (as if there were such things as qualifications).  try to pick the smartest people who can write well and have your ideological viewpoint.  thats all.  all of biden's proposed picks meet those criteria.

whomever he picks wont agree with me, but that's normal.  its biden's pick and he wants a liberal judiciary and a liberal judge.  but all this "racism" talk is just nonsense.

[mtutiger]

2 hours ago, Archie said:

Branco has been nailing it lately...

See Buddha's post.

This isn't anything new. The only reason you complain now is because you don't like Biden.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

2 hours ago, Archie said:

Branco has been nailing it lately...

I understand you were outraged when Ronald Reagan promised to pick a woman during the 1980 campaign and appointed Justice O'Connor right? I'm sure you when around saying no men need apply.

[1776]

2 hours ago, Archie said:

Branco has been nailing it lately...

This cartoon brings to mind the political ad Jesse Helms’ campaign ran against challenger Harvey Gantt in the NC US Senate race some 30 years ago. I would imagine posters here remember the ad? 
Then, and now, invoking race as a tool to motivate base voters and partisans is still in the playbook. Worse yet, it generally succeeds.

[pfife]

Yep

[1776]

7 minutes ago, pfife said:

Yep

Help me with this because I don’t recall…did Bush or McCain identify Thomas or Palin by race or gender publicly when selecting them? 
 

Edited January 29, 2022 by 1776

[chasfh]

11 minutes ago, 1776 said:

Help me with this because I don’t recall…did Bush or McCain identify Thomas or Palin by race or gender publicly when selecting them? 
 

Did they have to to qualify?

[1776]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Did they have to to qualify?

Do you have an answer?