Justice Breyer

[Merge]

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.

I don't think he is saying he didn't discriminate though. He's just allowed to discriminate as employment laws don't cover the court nominations.

Really would be the same as someone saying they would never vote for a woman, black person, muslim etc... You are allowed to choose who you want for whatever reason you want. The president has that same discretion with whatever reason they choose for their nomination.

 

[HALL85]

I'm trying to imagine a CEO of a company stating to his board that the next CFO I hire WILL be a black woman.

FWIW, I am a strong believer in having a diverse organization as you can. Locking yourself into quotas or targeting a certain position by identity is just foolish IMO.

 

[sami]

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.

If you think that doesn't happen, I have a bridge to sell you. Add promotions into that discussion.

 

[sami]

I'm trying to imagine a CEO of a company stating to his board that the next CFO I hire WILL be a black woman.

FWIW, I am a strong believer in having a diverse organization as you can. Locking yourself into quotas or targeting a certain position by identity is just foolish IMO.

I agree with you 100%. Diversity is important, and there is nothing wrong with nominating an African American woman. Actually, it's outstanding as it ticks 2 diversity boxes.

What you're saying just isn't getting through to some. He could have simply nominated an African American woman and been done with that. But he politicized the Supreme Court by saying years before even relevant that he would nominate an African American woman. No reason for that.

I kinda remember that the Supreme court wasn't supposed to be political. The split was more about how judges interpreted the Constitution. Well, welcome to the 2010s and 2020s.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

If you think that doesn't happen, I have a bridge to sell you. Add promotions into that discussion.

And now imagine if the CEO's of those companies went on National TV and told everyone they do that. They'd all be called bigots and their companies would face boycotts. Heck imagine the lawsuits of people who applied at those companies and didn't get the job.

 

[cernjSHU]

I agree with you 100%. Diversity is important, and there is nothing wrong with nominating an African American woman. Actually, it's outstanding as it ticks 2 diversity boxes.

What you're saying just isn't getting through to some. He could have simply nominated an African American woman and been done with that. But he politicized the Supreme Court by saying years before even relevant that he would nominate an African American woman. No reason for that.

I kinda remember that the Supreme court wasn't supposed to be political. The split was more about how judges interpreted the Constitution. Well, welcome to the 2010s and 2020s.

Really? Are u concerned by this ? https://amp.jsonline.com/amp/9244588002

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Really would be the same as someone saying they would never vote for a woman, black person, muslim etc... You are allowed to choose who you want for whatever reason you want. The president has that same discretion with whatever reason they choose for their nomination.

I assume most people would consider that person to be a bigot

 

[SPK145]

Really? Are u concerned by this ? https://amp.jsonline.com/amp/9244588002

So the same bipartisan political bullshit, have you forgotten the past few years?

 

[sami]

Really? Are u concerned by this ? https://amp.jsonline.com/amp/9244588002

This has what to do with my post you quoted?

 

[cernjSHU]

This has what to do with my post you quoted?

You are saying that the SC has been politicized by Biden saying he is going to pick a black female. Well, I disagree and I have given examples when Republicans have done it in the past.

What is political is what I cited that no matter who the nominee is or what qualifications she has that Senator will not vote her her. That’s politicizing the Court.

I don’t understand the hypocrisy in most of your stances. It’s ok that Biden nominates a black female. His intention all along was to nominate a black female abs you are all ok with that. However, although that was his intention, once he says it, it is wrong. I don’t get it. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me. You may not think it is politically a smart thing to do but that’s a different question.

Every President will have their types of who they want on the bench Trump wanted Pro-life to reward his backers. So he nominated pro life judges. Again, Reagan promised to nominate a woman while campaigning. Guess what, no one said a thing. It was not a big deal then nor now. This is a created issue.

 

[SHUSA]

You are saying that the SC has been politicized by Biden saying he is going to pick a black female. Well, I disagree and I have given examples when Republicans have done it in the past.

What is political is what I cited that no matter who the nominee is or what qualifications she has that Senator will not vote her her. That’s politicizing the Court.

I don’t understand the hypocrisy in most of your stances. It’s ok that Biden nominates a black female. His intention all along was to nominate a black female abs you are all ok with that. However, although that was his intention, once he says it, it is wrong. I don’t get it. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me. You may not think it is politically a smart thing to do but that’s a different question.

Every President will have their types of who they want on the bench Trump wanted Pro-life to reward his backers. So he nominated pro life judges. Again, Reagan promised to nominate a woman while campaigning. Guess what, no one said a thing. It was not a big deal then nor now. This is a created issue.

nobody was ok with him making being a black female the criteria for the SC position

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

I don't think he is saying he didn't discriminate though. He's just allowed to discriminate as employment laws don't cover the court nominations.

Really would be the same as someone saying they would never vote for a woman, black person, muslim etc... You are allowed to choose who you want for whatever reason you want. The president has that same discretion with whatever reason they choose for their nomination.

As long as we don't have a law for it, it's okay to discriminate. That's leadership at it's finest.

 

[Merge]

nobody was ok with him making being a black female the criteria for the SC position

Exactly. I think there is a valid argument to be made that the court should be diverse.
I just don't like the framing that you might have the brightest legal mind available from a person that is white, Asian, Latino or a man but they can't be considered because you promised a black woman.

No issue if race and gender are factors because you value a diverse court, but they shouldn't be qualifiers.

 

[Merge]

As long as we don't have a law for it, it's okay to discriminate. That's leadership at it's finest.

Like I said, I think it was a mistake to promise a black woman nominee.
You just asked why it wasn't illegal.

 

[HALL85]

Exactly. I think there is a valid argument to be made that the court should be diverse.
I just don't like the framing that you might have the brightest legal mind available from a person that is white, Asian, Latino or a man but they can't be considered because you promised a black woman.

No issue if race and gender are factors because you value a diverse court, but they shouldn't be qualifiers.

Exactly…

 

[ed odowd]

Selections based on anything than ability have to disadvantage somebody.White males will be poster boys for all the past evils of society even though the protected groups ( women ,minorities etc.) outnumber them currently.Sandra Day O’Connor said by 2020 we shouldn’t need affirmative action,but race hustlers like Sharpton will always feel everyone except white men needs favorable treatment aka quotas.Kinda of surprised Obama nominated Garland instead of a minority,women, or Muslim.Guess he didn’t get the memo.

 

[sami]

You are saying that the SC has been politicized by Biden saying he is going to pick a black female. Well, I disagree and I have given examples when Republicans have done it in the past.

What is political is what I cited that no matter who the nominee is or what qualifications she has that Senator will not vote her her. That’s politicizing the Court.

I don’t understand the hypocrisy in most of your stances. It’s ok that Biden nominates a black female. His intention all along was to nominate a black female abs you are all ok with that. However, although that was his intention, once he says it, it is wrong. I don’t get it. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me. You may not think it is politically a smart thing to do but that’s a different question.

Every President will have their types of who they want on the bench Trump wanted Pro-life to reward his backers. So he nominated pro life judges. Again, Reagan promised to nominate a woman while campaigning. Guess what, no one said a thing. It was not a big deal then nor now. This is a created issue.

No, I said the SC has been politicized in 2010 and 2020.

Full quote:

"I kinda remember that the Supreme court wasn't supposed to be political. The split was more about how judges interpreted the Constitution. Well, welcome to the 2010s and 2020s."

I don't have a problem with Presidents nominating "their people". But there was a time when the Court wasn't so left/right. The court isn't supposed to be political, that's the legislative branch's gig. The court is to interpret law.

And Biden pre-identifying a black woman was absolutely a political ploy. It was stupid. It makes the hard left applaud and the hard right say NFW, just like you posted. He could have just kept his mouth shut and nominated a strong candidate for merit and been just fine. And no one would be pissed if that was a black woman.

 

[SPK145]

Nothing is more political than the Supreme Court. Breyer wouldn’t be retiring if Trump was president. But Thomas probably would.

 

[shu09]

The Supreme Court wasn't intended to be political but, unfortunately, it has evolved into that. Does anyone think Sotomayor or Kagan will ever vote for the "conservative" position on an issue before the court? Or will Thomas or Alito vote for a "liberal" position? Fat chance.

 

[Merge]

The Supreme Court wasn't intended to be political but, unfortunately, it has evolved into that. Does anyone think Sotomayor or Kagan will ever vote for the "conservative" position on an issue before the court? Or will Thomas or Alito vote for a "liberal" position? Fat chance.

Agreed. One of the things that drew me towards Buttigieg when he ran was that he was trying to think of ways we could remove the politicization of the court.

 

[SHallguy2]

MLK said it best
“I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” ~Martin Luther King, Jr.
The very idea of president Biden calling for a black woman or any president calling for a specific gender or race takes away from the appointment itself. It’s the very definition of racism. Anyone who is selected will always wonder, “was I really the top candidate”? I think these appointments bring out the worse in our politicians.

 

[cernjSHU]

The Supreme Court wasn't intended to be political but, unfortunately, it has evolved into that. Does anyone think Sotomayor or Kagan will ever vote for the "conservative" position on an issue before the court? Or will Thomas or Alito vote for a "liberal" position? Fat chance.

I am pretty sure that Kagen already has voted for the conservative position on the famous bakers wedding cake case. But, I do agree with you that generally the Court is political to an extent. And going back in history, it always was. To the days of Justice Marshall to today, Politics has always played a part. The difference is that today the parties have become more dissimilar and the discourse has become more sharp and tense.

 

[HALL85]

https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-s...swatches-to-choose-next-supreme-court-justice

 

[anon_ezos2e9wn1ob0]

https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-s...swatches-to-choose-next-supreme-court-justice

That article was painfully unfunny. They might need some new comedy writers at Babylon Bee.

 

[HALL85]

That article was painfully unfunny. They might need some new comedy writers at Babylon Bee.

To be honest I stopped at the title and picture which was hilarious. I did read the article after your post and there were some decent lines….to each his own.

 

[cernjSHU]

Exactly. I think there is a valid argument to be made that the court should be diverse.
I just don't like the framing that you might have the brightest legal mind available from a person that is white, Asian, Latino or a man but they can't be considered because you promised a black woman.

No issue if race and gender are factors because you value a diverse court, but they shouldn't be qualifiers.

There are many people qualified and can or should sit on the Supreme Court. Posters on this thread have framed the question as if there are only 3 or four people in the US that are qualified for the Court. There are probably a hundreds of of people qualified to sit on the US Supreme Court, perhaps more.

The framing it as if a black female candidate cannot be part of that pool and somehow would be “less” qualified or as someone said would be an affirmative action candidate is just blatantly wrong. Look at the person’s qualifications. I looked at Krueger’s and she is extraordinarily qualified to sit on the bench. This debate is about nothing. As long as the person has the highest credentials, practiced law as a lawyer and was superb at it, we should all be happy with that type of pick.

 

[sami]

There are many people qualified and can or should sit on the Supreme Court. Posters on this thread have framed the question as if there are only 3 or four people in the US that are qualified for the Court. There are probably a hundreds of of people qualified to sit on the US Supreme Court, perhaps more.

The framing it as if a black female candidate cannot be part of that pool and somehow would be “less” qualified or as someone said would be an affirmative action candidate is just blatantly wrong. Look at the person’s qualifications. I looked at Krueger’s and she is extraordinarily qualified to sit on the bench. This debate is about nothing. As long as the person has the highest credentials, practiced law as a lawyer and was superb at it, we should all be happy with that type of pick.

I’m not sure you’re reading the same posts I am. I haven’t seen anyone framing it that there are only 3 or 4 qualified candidates, nor did I see anyone disputing Krueger’s credentials. I think the discussion has been clearly against Biden’s tactic of dictating that he was starting with a narrow sliver of the overall pie. But if you’re reading something else, by all means, keep making that point.

 

[cernjSHU]

I’m not sure you’re reading the same posts I am. I haven’t seen anyone framing it that there are only 3 or 4 qualified candidates, nor did I see anyone disputing Krueger’s credentials. I think the discussion has been clearly against Biden’s tactic of dictating that he was starting with a narrow sliver of the overall pie. But if you’re reading something else, by all means, keep making that point.

Someone posted that they were affirmative action candidates. This whole criticism is much ado about nothing.

 

[SPK145]

When the hiring manager states unequivocally that should an opening arise that he will hire a black woman, that is the epitome of affirmative action regardless how how qualified the nominee may be.

I'd get fired if I said I'm only going to look at a certain class of people to hire. So would you.

The ......, is an Equal Opportunity Employer. We strive to ensure that all applicants and employees in selection and promotion are treated fairly and equally, without regard to race or color, gender or gender identification, religion or national origin, marital status or sexual orientation, political affiliation, military status, or physical or mental disability that, with reasonable accommodation, would not significantly interfere with one’s ability to perform the essential functions of the job.

 

[HALL85]

https://www.yahoo.com/now/collins-biden-handling-supreme-court-170818887.html

Good perspective by Susan Collins on SCOTUS.

 

[Merge]

https://www.yahoo.com/now/collins-biden-handling-supreme-court-170818887.html

Good perspective by Susan Collins on SCOTUS.

She's wrong (or lying) about Reagan.

As candidate right before the election, "I’m announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find… It’s time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists"

What Biden did is the same thing

 

[HALL85]

She's wrong (or lying) about Reagan.

As candidate right before the election, "I’m announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find… It’s time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists"

What Biden did is the same thing

I'd have to go back and see the actual quote from the speech, but that is slightly different by stating "one of the first". I agree that Reagan should not have done it either, but her position is still level-headed and on point.

 

[Merge]

I'd have to go back and see the actual quote from the speech, but that is slightly different by stating "one of the first". I agree that Reagan should not have done it either, but her position is still level-headed and on point.

It's the same thing. He promised a woman to the court. He didn't say he'd like to appoint a woman as Collins stated.

I agree with her now. Just wish she could have at least acknowledged that Reagan politicized the process as well.

 

[SPK145]

Majority of Americans want Biden to consider 'all possible nominees' for Supreme Court vacancy: POLL

A new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds that a plurality of Americans view the Supreme Court as a body motivated by partisanship.

abcnews.go.com

 

[SHUSA]

Majority of Americans want Biden to consider 'all possible nominees' for Supreme Court vacancy: POLL

A new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds that a plurality of Americans view the Supreme Court as a body motivated by partisanship.

abcnews.go.com

so 23% of people want it to be about race, 23% who likely think theyre against racism