https://www.axios.com/ketanji-brown...urt-98d4ee89-69d8-4298-b9a1-0b180e7f306a.html
Let the identity politics games begin...lol
Let the identity politics games begin...lol
Justice Breyer
- Thread starter HALL85
- Start date
Well, it seems that Krueger is not only qualified but would be a welcomed addition to the Court. We need litigators who know the real world and not judges sitting in their ivory tower. She argued a dozen cases before the Supreme. Court and she is a moderate. Sign me up.
It was pretty stupid for him to promise to nominate a black woman. Should have just said he will nominate the most qualified and thoughtful person and ended up with the same nomination.
dems cant get out if their own way. dont listen to what they say its ALL about race. everything must be about race.
I’m sorry. What is everyone upset at. Krueger is a very good candidate. Who cares if he said he wants a black woman. The point is that the nominee is a great candidate. And in my opinion should have practiced law and not be in academia their whole career.
It’s not a matter if Krueger may be qualified…just a dumb move to make the first qualifier be black. That’s the point.
Who cares. U at offended that he wants to put a black woman on the Bench? That’s ur complaint? Is it because white guys haven’t had a chance at being on the bench? I’ll judge the qualifications of the candidate. The last nominee was woefully unqualified in my opinion but I’m sure u approved of her.
I’m not offended. And why do you go right to “a white guy”? What if there is a highly qualified Asian American woman or Indian American man? They’ve been scratched purely because of skin color. Dumb and pandering…nothing more.
No that’s not it. Black women were integral in getting Biden elected. That’s how it works. Plenty of people are qualified. Now of that group who did the most to get him elected. Thus, shows his appreciating to black women. I have no issue if the person if a very qualified person with real life experience.
But the last nominee practiced law for almost the same time as Krueger.
And that’s identity politics and you can’t get more superficial than what you’re suggesting…pathetic
What are u talking about? Amy Coney Barrett was an academic. She practiced for three years. Did nothing. Krueger has an impressive resume with lots of real world experience. 12 arguments before the Supreme Court is unbelievable. She was in private practice for 4 years, six years as assistant solicitor general and a year as a deputy US attorney attorney. You can’t compare the two It’s not even close.
Working for the government as long as Krueger has is “real world experience” ?
Both affirmative action candidates appear to be qualified but it won’t be easy getting confirmed with an equal split in the judicial committee thanks to the deal Schumer and McConnell cut as well as a 50-50 split in the full Senate where it appears the vice president doesn’t have the power to break a tie.
That would be the common sense approach, but these days you have to cater to the nuts in your political party in order to stay in favor.
In all honesty, would you have been ok with Trump saying he would only consider white people because that was the group that got him elected?
Sorry. I have no issue with him nominating a black woman.
I do have an issue with him saying he will only consider a black woman.
My hope is that Biden comes out and says he promised that because he already knew who he wanted to nominate because they were the best legal mind that he knew of. That would salvage this a little, but now the conversation is going to be about race and if there were more qualified people that deserved the nomination. It's a distraction and also VERY unfair to his nominee.
Lol, yes. People who work for the government and litigate is practicing law. Working for the government is real world experience when it comes to the courtroom and litigation. She argued before the Supreme Court 12 times. She was not an academic. She practiced law, she was in the courtroom and argued the governments position. That’s real world experience in the law. Not someone who has never seen the inside of a courtroom. Is arguing the government’s side any less than arguing for a private individual or corporation?
Is it any different than Ronald Reagan promising to nominate a woman during his campaign and then nominated Sandra Day O’Conner? If it is, please tell me how?
A little before my time paying attention to politics so I wasn't aware he did, but in my opinion that would also be wrong.
The default is white man. It’s sort of a given that the white man is going to get considered. It’s been done in the past. This is much ado about nothing. No one criticized Reagan why is it being criticized now ?
I don't know if I agree with this take:
dailycaller.com
However, this could be problematic:
time.com
Top Biden Legal Ally Says Kamala Harris Can’t Break A Tie For Biden’s SCOTUS Nominee
One of Joe Biden's legal advisers may have thrown a wrench in Biden's impending push to nominate a Supreme Court Justice to fill Justice Stephen Breyer's seat.
dailycaller.com
However, this could be problematic:
Biden, Senate Democrats Can Replace Justice Stephen Breyer on Party Lines
"Every step requires a simple majority, which they’ll have."
time.com
no, replace his actual words with that. there wouldnt be an outrage? ooook
You are ignoring the history of the Supreme Court. It is the default position. No need to say anything. Anything that departs from the norm. When Clarence Thomas was nominated by Bush, did anyone think it would be other than a black to replace Marshall? No. Again this has been done in the past abs it is much ado about nothing as long as the nominee is a good nominee
But that's the point...Bush never came out and said it, because it would be dumb to paint yourself into a corner like that and it's identity pandering. What if the first and or second candidates wash out (unlikely but possible)? Does he keep going down the black woman path until he finds one?
So you rather ur politicians be sneaky and dishonest. Lol. It was understood by everyone that Marshall’s seat was going to a black man. Period. Moreover, Reagan did the same thing promising to nominate a woman. There is no difference. Are you actually saying that in all of the US there are only two black women qualified to sit on the SCOTUS? You are twisting yourself up trying to be outraged by something that is nothing
You’re the one twisting yourself into a pretzel. You can’t grasp the simple concepts of pandering, identity politics and boxing yourself in. I already said Reagan was wrong for doing the same thing.
Last edited:
I don't think any discrimination law covers a presidents discretion related to nominations.
Seems to defy logic. Imagine an employer going through a list of resumes, trying to sort them by gender or race and then picking which pile he/she wants to choose from then saying I didn't discriminate.
thats acrually happening tho. my ild company said that 40% of leadership hires had to be african american. im not kidding.
African americans make up like 13% of the population.
i hope 100% of african americans are considered though. i think discriminatory policies like the above only swing the pendulum, grow more hatred, and push the equality movement even further out of reach. its unfortunate but its just reality. dont fight fire with fire
