Thoughts On Picking Specific Race And Gender For Supreme Court Judge (1 Viewer)

[The General]

I will add that I hope Biden's nominee works out as well for him as O'Connor did for Reagan.  That would be great.

This has been brought up a few times. There’s no guarantee middle aged white or any pick is going to work out well.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

This has been brought up a few times. There’s no guarantee middle aged white or any pick is going to work out well.

I can't think of a Democratically-appointed justice that "turned' the way Souter and Stevens did, or that's even like O'Connor, being somewhat more moderate than expected.  This seems to purely be a Republican problem.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Reagan says he's going to 

Yeah it was okay when those guys essentially did the same thing.  I'm not sure if the reason it is a problem now is because it is Biden that is doing it or that in this case it is a black woman.  Probably both.

Just one more thing to get their panties in an bunch I guess

I would guess that some is also the combination of this and doing the same thing for the VP spot.  

 

[FairWarning]

I can't think of a Democratically-appointed justice that "turned' the way Souter and Stevens did, or that's even like O'Connor, being somewhat more moderate than expected.  This seems to purely be a Republican problem.

It is just a D appointee replacing another, the numbers stay the same.  I really haven’t heard a list of people that R’s want (not that it matters).

 

[The General]

It is just a D appointee replacing another, the numbers stay the same.  I really haven’t heard a list of people that R’s want (not that it matters).

Lindsey Graham is all about Michelle Childs from his state

 

[FairWarning]

Lindsey Graham is all about Michelle Childs from his state

IDK, she may be the most qualified. We’ll never know until an R is president.  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It is just a D appointee replacing another, the numbers stay the same.  I really haven’t heard a list of people that R’s want (not that it matters).

I was just responding to IK's hope that Biden's appointee might ultimately disappoint Democrats.

 

[FairWarning]

I was just responding to IK's hope that Biden's appointee might ultimately disappoint Democrats.

Always that risk, but I prefer my SC to serve based on law and not party.  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Always that risk, but I prefer my SC to serve based on law and not party.  

The Supreme Court usually is called upon to answer questions where the law is somewhat ambiguous or undecided.  Serving "based on law" seems to be to be a red herring.   

 

[The General]

IDK, she may be the most qualified. We’ll never know until an R is president.  

Was talking about this the other morning as well. I don’t know how it is determined there’s a more qualified person. Trump for instance had a list of like 50 people I thought.

They all have impressive credentials I assume. 

 

[Zow]

Always that risk, but I prefer my SC to serve based on law and not party.  

So did you support what happened to Merrick Garland?

 

[FairWarning]

So did you support what happened to Merrick Garland?

I would have to read up on it, I don’t recall all of the facts offhand.

 

[Zow]

Was talking about this the other morning as well. I don’t know how it is determined there’s a more qualified person. Trump for instance had a list of like 50 people I thought.

They all have impressive credentials I assume. 

Yeah this is kind of where I'm at. I'm not sure how you start to parse out something like the top 50 candidates and create a metric for where one is better than the other. For example is it more impressive to have a bunch of trial wins as a defense attorney? To have successfully prosecuted a bunch of criminals? Done a bunch of arguments before appellate courts? Managed a top law firm? Decades of public service? Was an attorney general? Sat as a judge for years with a good track record of sensible decisions? Should law school and law school grades matter (I can tell you that doesn't mean #### in actual day to day practice)? I work in this world and I don't have these answers. 

I think where the proverbial ship sailed on this process being something other than purely partisan is when a bunch of democrats voted against Roberts. His record and credentials were impeccable. By rule that should end the analysis. But, no, we have to make up BS reasons to vote against him for political reasons. ####### awful. Then this sentiment was only exacerbated with the Merrick Garland (another well-qualified candidate) nonsense. 

 

[Zow]

Expounding on the credentials thing, I think there were only two nominated to closely nominated judges I thought lacked the "credentials." The first was Harriet Myers who just didn't have the same career as a notable litigator and/or judge and while I would have liked a Justice that didn't hail from a top law school her nomination seemed to be a reward for her loyalty to Bush. The second was Kavanagh. While he has the credentials on paper and while I am not convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that he committed sexual assault as alleged, his behavior and decorum in the nomination hearings should have immediately worsened his credentials to the point he should have been voted against. But, of course, that just went down party lines...

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I think where the proverbial ship sailed on this process being something other than purely partisan is when a bunch of democrats voted against Roberts. His record and credentials were impeccable. By rule that should end the analysis. 

What rule?

 

[Zow]

What rule?

My recollection, and this is from probably 15 years ago (we discussed this in some law school class I was in at the time), is that the approval process sets a standard where the question for the approval is simply whether the nominee is qualified. I concede I cannot point to a specific rule, and perhaps I've manufactured a conflated version of should vs. shall in my head, but for some reason I sit here with this stark recollection of the standard of review the legislature is supposed to give. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

My recollection, and this is from probably 15 years ago (we discussed this in some law school class I was in at the time), is that the approval process sets a standard where the question for the approval is simply whether the nominee is qualified. I concede I cannot point to a specific rule, and perhaps I've manufactured a conflated version of should vs. shall in my head, but for some reason I sit here with this stark recollection of the standard of review the legislature is supposed to give. 

Constitution says "advise and consent."  That's the only "rule."

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I'll repeat the question I asked earlier (and this isn't meant as a gotcha, I'm genuinely interested in teasing out your position): Reagan pledged to name a woman to "one of" his first Court appointments, but didn't make it explicit. Trump pretty much pledged to pick a woman to replace Ginsburg. Bush 41 didn't make any kind of public pledge to appoint a Black justice, but it was obvious to anyone paying attention that was always going to be the plan.

In your view, is there any line to be drawn between what any of those presidents did and what Biden did? Is it the categorical nature of his pledge that bothers you?

I don't remember Reagan's exact wording, but it would have been hard for him to screw that up. When 100% of Supreme Court Justices up to that point had been males, I think it's fine to go out of your way to nominate someone who isn't male.

I also don't remember Trump's exact wording and can't bring myself to care. I'm happy to assume that whenever he ventured into identity politics, he was somewhat gauche about it. But even if he explicitly excluded males from consideration to replace Ginsburg, that's not nearly as bad, IMO, as excluding Asians, Hispanics, and Native Americans (as Biden did) since males aren't exactly underrepresented even today.

If Bush didn't make a public race-based pledge, I think he did it right.

 

[squistion]

This a good sign.  

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1488497366109806594

Sen. Joe Manchin says he's "anxious" to fill Justice Breyer's seat on the Supreme Court. He says it's "far beyond time, far beyond time" for a Black woman on the Supreme Court.

 

[Zow]

Constitution says "advise and consent."  That's the only "rule."

Interesting. Wonder if I'm experiencing some bizarre version of a Mandela Effect because I have a stark and vivid recollection of discussing the standard I identified above in class. I just did a quick google search though and nothing is popping up. 

Of course, I did attend Hamline...