Legal/scotus thread
- Thread starter cajunrevenge
- Start date
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
Even Sotomayor sailed through with bipartisan support and it was clear during the confirmation hearings what she is. It would have to be someone as off as that economic nominee that wrote about the glory of the Soviet system for the nomination to fail. Pubs won't unanimously vote against her if both Manchin and Sinema are going to vote for her. They'll toss her a few votes in the hopes that the media will applaud their bipartisanship. The media won't, but Romney, Murkowski, Collins, etc can't figure that out.
Well lets see if Manchin and Sinema actually care about the nation because the last thing we need is some 45 year old uber progressive woman who thinks there are 15 genders and that elections should be federalized on the court.
If the left does what they have been doing for the last 5 years I expect an unabashed communist as the nominee.
To be fair here, he’s not just going to nominate Oprah for SCOTUS. He’s going to find a nominee with the credentials to fill the role. It’s not a system where there’s a number one contender. Would you also complain when candidates promised to put Pro-Life nominees on the Court? Having a political view does not qualify one for SCOTUS any more than race.
For what it’s worth, I agree with you on this. I don’t think that should have been a campaign promise or a consideration for SCOTUS. I have just been annoyed with the chatter that the nominee he selects will be someone who has no merit.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I expect him to nominate the lady with three names from the DC circuit. She is qualified, I probably don't agree with her on much, and I probably would vote for her if (God forbid) I was in the Senate.
I'm with you and thethe on the impact his promise has on her credibility, but that promise and the nomination won't have occurred in a vacuum. His entire presidency has been about intersectionality bingo. It's enough already. When you promise to limit your candidates to, what, 7% of the population?, and probably less than that of judges or law school grads?, it is going to be hard for me to respect the process.
sturg33
I
[Tw]1486384680517738498[/tw]
I don’t have any issues with trying to make the system as a whole more diverse. Having more underrepresented groups in the federal court system as a whole is something I’d support. My issue with an appointment to something like SCOTUS is that it’s pandering for the sake of pandering. There are 9 total justices, and their knowledge and judgement are the only things that should matter. I could maybe squint and say charitably that having 9 justices with completely different life experiences could be a positive, but that argument falls apart when you consider all the different ways that could be accomplished without dictating the exact minority that checks that box.
I think that this is a valid enough criticism, but I can only speak to my own perception. I’m open to listening to the viewpoints of women of color, and would welcome a conversation on why someone might think I’m wrong about this. I just think that the size of the court relative to the judicial system as a whole makes it less compelling to say that being a member of a very specific minority group should be the primary consideration.
In this case nobody is suggesting it should be a white man. I’d be fine if it were one, but my bigger concern is the amount of voices being excluded. Native Americans, Asian Americans and Latin Americans have a combined 1 member on the court in Sotomayor who is Latin American. The specifics of the campaign promise ultimately made it feel like tokenism rather than any actual concern for diversity. As I’ve said multiple times, the more diverse we can make our systems as a whole, the better. All branches of the government are better served when there are people in it representing the entire population it serves. I’m also sure that based on the names floating around that a highly qualified judge will be nominated, and I’ll be happy with the end result. I just think this is a specific case where we’re checking a box just to say we did it and I don’t think that’s an equitable decision. By singling out black women as the only voice you’re looking for, you’re marginalizing every other voice, not just white men.
We will never see a Muslim on the Supreme Court unless a republican nominates one.
striker42
Well-known member
If I was Mitch McConnell, I'd gather every Republican I could to vote for Biden's pick. If Biden's pick got 80 votes in the Senate after the mess that was the confirmation of Trump's picks it would leave the Democrats looking petty and the Republicans looking like the adults in the room. That wont happen of course. But it would be fun to see if it happened.
Jaw
It's OVER 5,000!
I had this thought too, but I think it would just get played up as Dems picking mainstream candidates that get bipartisan support while Pubs pick extremists. There's only so much the opposition party can do to win messaging against the state propaganda ministry.
