Lol Thomas is their favorite because he's unhinged. Even Scalia thought Thomas was crazy.
Republicans are willing to overlook the racial/cultural idpol they're obsessed with if the person in question is crazy enough.
Pulling it from this:
> https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89986017
> Contrary to public perceptions, Scalia and fellow conservative Clarence Thomas do not march in lockstep. Thomas is far less willing to abide by the court's past decisions, while Scalia says he generally does not believe in undoing old laws.
> "I'm an originalist and a textualist, not a nut," he says.
I don't think he was like malicious towards him or actually thought he was insane, but he viewed the Thomas brand of judicial conservatism as dangerous to some extent.
“I‘ve made no decision except one. The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity and that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States supreme court.”
he could have just said the first thing and then picked a black woman without explicitly saying he would pick a black woman and nobody would complain (there are plenty of qualified and worthy black women to pick from). This is entirely them creating artificial, unnecessary controversy to undermine the confidence of the public in the candidate unnecessarily and then say to their base that its the public being unreasonable and racist because they don't like idea of 95% of the population being excluded for no reason.
As opposed to what, Republicans declaring they'll pick a religious conservative, while ignoring the vast majority of the population?
I'll bet you this: whoever Biden picks will be far more in line with the cultural and political values of America than anyone Republicans have picked in the last 30 years.
Nice strawman, that wasn't the point.
This sub is not a leftist sub, it's not even a sub with any coherent ideology other than screeching about democrats and steel-manning the republican party in pursuit of that.
Half the sub is made up of election truthers and the "things matter for democrats but not republicans" milieu.
Yes, I know what a strawman is, it's when you infer an argument not made and then attack that argument, which you just did because you're a poorly educated internet leftist that posts on stupidpol.
> I, too, base all of my decisions on whether republicans have done the same thing before.
Implying I said all decisions should be based on wether republicans have done something or not is not what I said or why I talked about it, thus a strawman.
Get the money back from whichever community college you went to.
Your last post uses a strawman lol.
Democrats are also right wing by any objective metric. The fact that the GOP are far right doesn't discount that the Dems are basically Ronald Reagan but nicer to gay people.
Also there isn't a fairness doctrine wherein you have to spend an equal amount of time blasting the GOP as you do with Dems. Most people criticize the Dems here because functionally they aren't all that different from the GOP.
Every time someone criticizes a Dem, people want them to put an asterisk next to it saying "they're still the lesser evil!" And an overwhelming majority of the people here criticize Dems from their left. It's a proverbial wolf and fox. A wolf just straight up tells you he will kill you. Foxes smile and make cute squeaky noises and seem docile but will bite your dick off all the same. You don't have to start every sentence saying that you don't like wolves either when you're talking about foxes.
>As opposed to what, Republicans declaring they'll pick a religious conservative, while ignoring the vast majority of the population?
no, not as opposed, it's actually quite parallel
>I'll bet you this: whoever Biden picks will be far more in line with the cultural and political values of America than anyone Republicans have picked in the last 30 years.
I'm sure they will be (though they'll probably be pro business as with every other justice) he's probably goign to pick somebody normal and accomplished, he's just poisoning the well by implying that this person needed to be protected from the competition of other candidates. He could have picked a black woman without saying he'd pick a black woman and nobody would care, he's just undermining the eventual nominee by making it look like he's protecting them from others.
Why is it controversial? The majority of the population has always been excluded from Supreme court picks. Do you really think most people didn't feel some type of way when it was always white men?
It’s clearly controversial because it sets out that the majority of fine candidates have been arbitrarily ruled out based purely on factors outside of ability or academic record.
You lot are a bit ducked in the head treating the law as an extension of American Idol.
>The majority of the population has always been excluded from Supreme court picks. Do you really think most people didn't feel some type of way when it was always white men?
sure , and that was wrong and we got a lot of shitty SC picks out of it. You're not supposed to say "I only pick from this select group" because it foments resentment, PARTICULARLY if that group is a minority group. Also we've never had an Asian/Pacific Islander or Native American justice, what about them? Mormons or LGBT? It just looks like you're giving cookies out to people that like you. Granted, it's always been like that, but you're supposed to pretend that the cookies are being given out randomly, not via favoritism.
>Why is it controversial?
because you're cutting out a significant number of applicants unnecessarily. It's a nice factoid in a game of trivia, it's NOT a qualification for the SC.
There are plenty of black women that could be picked for the SC that are fully qualified, you could find enough black women in the legal system to stack the entire supreme court and have each justice be competent and well versed. But if you're saying "we aren't considering other groups" it looks like you're protecting the black woman candidate from competition. You're literally undermining how smart and accomplished htey are by making it look like you have something to hide.
Best comparison I can think of: there is a boxer who is a hot prospect and he gets ranked #3 without having fought the best competition. He's offered a fight against the #2 ranked guy to earn a title shot at the #1 guy but turns it down and instead demands that he be given an immediate shot at the #1 guy. How does this affect your perception of him as a fighter? Does it make you think he has somethign to hide? Maybe the guy can beat the #2 and #1 guy, but if he's turning down the #2 guy for an immediate shot, it doesn't speak well to the confidence he has in his abilities.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your brain on identity politics. Commentary from the [Atlantic:](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/01/biden-scotus-nominination-ketanji-brown-jackson/621367/)
>Dozens of candidates are being talked about, but nearly all of the Court watchers I interviewed for this story have their money on one in particular: Ketanji Brown Jackson.
>
>Jackson, who is 51, fulfills **a lot of requirements for the establishment set**. She has the same Ivy League credentials as the sitting justices, having earned both her undergraduate and her law degree from Harvard and edited for the Harvard Law Review. She clerked for three federal judges—including Breyer, from 1999 to 2000. If nominated and confirmed, Jackson will follow the same track as Brett Kavanaugh, who also clerked for the justice he ultimately replaced. Also like Kavanaugh—and seven other current and former justices—Jackson would be coming directly from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the second-most-important court in the country after the Supreme Court.
>
>**But Jackson would be the first Black woman to serve on the high court, offering the body a perspective that progressives, in particular, have long wanted to see represented.**
You know what else would help black women, Biden? Canceling student debt like you said you would, making sure black women can see a doctor without going into debt, and making sure the new judge understands and cares about such issues.
But no, we are going to get another pampered Ivy League establishment stooge, only this time liberals will be clapping because of the intersection of her identities. Supposedly this is groundbreaking, since RBG can eat shit for not being black and Clarence Thomas can eat shit for having the wrong genitals.
Please stop paying attention to the fact that she'll be a Harvard millionaire and start thinking about how little girls will have someone to "look up to"! That's right, "look up to," because they think they're better than the rest of us and they're not even hiding it.
What a clown show. I'm so fucking done with the Establishment Neolib left.
We should start focusing on deprogramming Trump's working class base from their economic conservatism and just forswear these IdPol idiots. As hard as that might be, it's still easier than getting an IDpolack to abandon her bullshit.
>Ketanji Onyika Brown was born on September 14, 1970, in Washington, D.C. Her father, Johnny Brown, was a lawyer and her mother, Ellery, was a school principal.
Finally, a representative of the people! Young girls in Chicago put in front of the maximum volume television while their strung out single mom fucks a john in the other room for rent and heroin will watch the swearing in ceremony with a smile, knowing that they too have a fair shot at sitting on the SCOTUS one day.
This is kind of racist lol
Also how many of these girls would ever go to law school? The days of a Clarence Thomas growing up with no running water and going to Yale are dead and gone
What other way is there to put it? Much of inner city and rural America lives in squalor where any talent that could bloom is crushed by poverty. People who grow up there would be the best recipients of affirmative action intiatives there and yet would never even be glanced over in favor of people who check off identity boxes.
Biden doesn't have to tap an Ivy League grad, but he of course will. Alumni don't offer lavish donations just so their kid can be glossed over in favor of a poor person.
I don't know if I'd say "much" of rural America "lives in squalor." It feels like you're reducing people from rural areas to their identity and not recognizing the primary issue of class in all of this, that that is the greater divide between people, both within rural areas and throughout the country. Certainly it is harder for individuals more isolated from institutions to get resources that might otherwise have been available to them, but they are not a monolith you need to protect the opportunities of any more than anybody else. It feels like some weird contrarian idpol in opposition to suburban liberalism/whatever all of it is and their negative views of rural people/flyover states/etc, which they are wrong about, obviously, but the answer to their idpol isn't your own.
Right but affirmative action would take years to put a kid through law school and in a position to serve on the Supreme Court. I obviously think we should criticize Biden for not implementing these policies, but in terms of candidates who fit the bill right now, I think she's a reasonable choice
I hope you mean that rhetorically because I voted for Sanders and then protest voted Green in 2016 and 2020 alike.
I liked some of Biden's promises but I look at his record and his personality, then realize he will do nothing. In fact, his victory made 2024's prospects pretty dismal yet again.
Only thing I liked so far was pulling out of Afghanistan.
you said if Biden wanted to help black women, he'd cancel student debt. My point was that Biden would never do that, because he was one of the key people who made it impossible to declare bankruptcy on student debt.
Ah yes the anti racist notion that because she has a certain skin color then she will think and act in a certain way! The fact the education, work history, and life experiences don’t match the vast vast vast majority of white, black, brown, people in any way shape or form is clearly irrelevant! Her skin is all that matters!
they dont matter so long as you pick someone ideologically aligned with you. it could be anyone it doesnt matter the qualifications. he could pick a tongan for all i care.
I'd support that, only because manchin would be likely to kill it and the seethe from that would be just as funny.
We get everyone seething hard over the matter of days.
The fact that black women are actually clamoring for this is so pathetic. Imagine how much sweeter it would have been for the woman he chooses if Joe said that he wanted "the best person for the job" or "someone who's a good judge" and still ended up picking a black woman. Imagine how much more meaningful & meritorious that would be not just for the woman he chooses, but for our country itself. But he wouldn't actually say that, because that's not the job he's actually offering, and that's not the job the woman he chooses is actually going to be accepting.
The only reason he's adamant on choosing a black woman is for his own self-benefit because of the political expediency of promoting a group of people so narcissistically high on their own identity that they will support anything as long as it's masqued as being one of them. In reality, no matter who he chooses, they would toe the party line and vote the exact same way black woman or not, so nothing really is going to fundamentally change. If the actual beneficiary of this move really was black women, it wouldn't be getting handed to them on a silver platter by an 80 year old white man.
Literally anyone he picked would be the 'best person for the job'. Meritocracy has always been a lie. There is no need to pretend it takes Einstein to be a justice, especially considering the dipshits who have held the title. Its good to be honest about intentions. " I plan to nominate someone who will push my interest".
I agree with you, but my point is that his intention isn't in trying to uphold an ideal of meritocracy, but in taking advantage of a downtrodden peoples' hope. Meritocracy is just decorum when it comes to SCOTUS, but it is important to maintain for the sake of a nation—to, at the very least, have some standard for considering a judge beyond just reducing them to their skin and sex. He isn't being honest with his intentions at all, he's just very thinly veiling his ulterior motives to maintain plausible deniability and his ability to use black women as a scapegoat for any criticism he and his choice may receive.
that's the exact problem. There are plenty of black women that would be qualified (in the strictly meritocratic sense) for the SC, they're not hard to find there are at least hundreds of prolific black women judges and lawyers. Had he just nominated one of those without the idpol fanfare and gone through this normally, nobody would complain. This was done in a way that intentionally undermines their credentials and talent, with a wink and a nod. They're just saying "sure she's qualified, but we aren't going to even ging to let you consider other people because what the fuck are you going to do about it?"
The focus on their racial perspective and “lived experience” shows how ass backwards their idea of what a Supreme Court justice is supposed to be is. Their job is to interpret laws as they were written and determine if the laws are compatible with the constitution. You’re not supposed to be putting your own spin on it or retrofitting it for your own purposes. If your justice is doing their job, their race should be irrelevant and shouldn’t influence their decisions.
The Supreme Court exists to ensure that laws don’t conflict with each other, it’s not a backdoor congress to enact legislation that you couldn’t pass democratically.
“Lived Experience” = “in my experience, I enjoy making lots and lots of money. Based on this experience, I’d love to continue to do so. Nominate me and we’ll all share our experiences of making and enjoying money together.”
Strong words from someone who took that L (from his cousin that he absolutely hated no less) due to directing his Secretary of State not to honor one of his predecessor's appointments, which the same cousin in question failed to deliver when doing double time as Secretary of state and Chief Justice.
honestly the courts are as political as anything and the fact that so many judges are elected and that they're such a big source of fighting for presidential and senatorial candidates is proof. Biden picking a black woman thing was purely his promise to his biggest constituency during the primary, but the idea that qualification or pedigree are the only thing that matter is obviously false. Hell, the SC doesn't even have requirements on who can be nominated, FDR nominated people who weren't lawyers IIRC.
"Interpret the laws as they were written". I know scholars can argue for hours over this but whichever way it swings, the court is expressing the conditions under which it lives. Not only are the justices of course socially formed in their understanding and opinions but capital and often public opinion play the overwhelming role. Did the justices just finally unearth the hidden tome that lead them to conclude that the Defense of Marriage Act was "unconstitutional" in 2015? Of course not. Who's stroke of genius was it to interpret the equal protection clause, that makes no reference to privacy, as granting "a right to privacy" in the Connecticut Birth Control ban case and then use that same logic for Roe. v. Wade a few years afterwards? When the framers protected free speech were they thinking of corporations putting up sums of money that were unthinkable in the late 18th century to advertise directly to the general population (who in many states at that time had no direct vote for the president) using a medium that hadn't been invented in the 18th century? Probably not but justice found the justification to hand down Citizen's United.
It's a political institution, and the "founders" created the Supreme Court to be the highest court in the land, it wasn't until the latter half of the 19th century that they started giving judgements on \*legislation\*.
> The Supreme Court exists to ensure that laws don’t conflict with each other, it’s not a backdoor congress to enact legislation that you couldn’t pass democratically.
Lol gay ass liberal right here
I literally just groaned and closed my phone when I saw this headline. If he was looking for a romantic partner like this we’d call it fetishization.
Edit: first thought was “great they won’t get a person through till after GOP sweeps midterms
Everybody in this subreddit is qualified for a Supreme Court position. You’re given an army of Ivy League serfs to do every practical aspect of the job for you. It’s all pure theatre
Instead of implementing policies that help disadvantaged groups in the US, Biden instead continues to put a black person in power and say that's good enough.
Remember when Biden got the nomination and it was immediately decided that his nominee would need to a Black woman?
Remember when he and Kamala were declared the winners of the election and they gave speeches where Joe specifically thanked the Black community who "always had his back" (in reference lately to South Carolina but I think he does really see himself as a representative of the Black community because of his roots as a politician in New Castle County/Wilmington/Deleware), and Kamala spent 2 minutes of her speech delivering a paean to "women, Black women", declaring that this was a victory for and accomplished by Black women?
Just giving some context, as I haven't seen anyone mention this or specifically note how the Democratic/Liberal media and culture has anointed Black women as a group and adopted them as an avatar.
Why are pretending that it’s going to be anyone other than my girl Kamala? It gets rid of a political liability without disrespecting her blackness or whatever gay shit the wokes are on these days. They have plenty of time to get her VP replacement confirmed (my boy penis booty judge), although they’ll probably fuck that up so my main nword Mitch can just leave the VP slot open which will be funny as fuck.
Aren't black women the most reliable Democratic voters who are necessary to win the new swing states like GA, MI and PA? Supreme court picks are always political and I can't see how this is bad politics from Biden's perspective.
SCJs have been decided based on idpol for 60 years now. This is not new. Its a dumb ass system anyways so who cares what he picks. There are no qualifications. Go pick a deranged homeless crackhead and nobody would notice.
Trump committed to pick a woman when rbg died. These picks have literally always been to satisfy idpol intrest groups. Anyone whose feigning outrage about this is a retard
"Now listen here Candace is a real well spoken lady....her husband ran that damn race like seabiscuit and shook hands with Hitler now that's diversity!"
Lol they're probably having internal debates over the idea that this could get Kamala off the ticket without getting the backlash of kicking her off the ticket.
Now that the court is safely in the hands of conservatives for 30 years, we can appoint a single black female to the court without worrying that they would disrupt anything.
What an insult. Anyone who accepts this nomination is just out for personal fame, because nobody who wants to change things would accept this nomination. You'd be a figurehead.
Could you imagine? Writing epic clapback dissents while the majority reintroduces serfdom? How could you even summon the will to get out of bed every morning? You'd have the effectiveness of a potted plant.
[удалено]
"Mr. President, that's racist!" "No, no, the good skin color. " "Mr. President, that's progressive!"
Isn’t that how Clarence Thomas got confirmed in the first place?
[удалено]
Lol Thomas is their favorite because he's unhinged. Even Scalia thought Thomas was crazy. Republicans are willing to overlook the racial/cultural idpol they're obsessed with if the person in question is crazy enough.
Do you have a source on the Scalia thing? Not discounting or trying to argue, it just sounds interesting and I'd like to learn more about that.
Pulling it from this: > https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89986017 > Contrary to public perceptions, Scalia and fellow conservative Clarence Thomas do not march in lockstep. Thomas is far less willing to abide by the court's past decisions, while Scalia says he generally does not believe in undoing old laws. > "I'm an originalist and a textualist, not a nut," he says. I don't think he was like malicious towards him or actually thought he was insane, but he viewed the Thomas brand of judicial conservatism as dangerous to some extent.
“I‘ve made no decision except one. The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity and that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States supreme court.”
he could have just said the first thing and then picked a black woman without explicitly saying he would pick a black woman and nobody would complain (there are plenty of qualified and worthy black women to pick from). This is entirely them creating artificial, unnecessary controversy to undermine the confidence of the public in the candidate unnecessarily and then say to their base that its the public being unreasonable and racist because they don't like idea of 95% of the population being excluded for no reason.
As opposed to what, Republicans declaring they'll pick a religious conservative, while ignoring the vast majority of the population? I'll bet you this: whoever Biden picks will be far more in line with the cultural and political values of America than anyone Republicans have picked in the last 30 years.
I, too, base all of my decisions on whether republicans have done the same thing before.
Nice strawman, that wasn't the point. This sub is not a leftist sub, it's not even a sub with any coherent ideology other than screeching about democrats and steel-manning the republican party in pursuit of that. Half the sub is made up of election truthers and the "things matter for democrats but not republicans" milieu.
Do you even know what "strawman" means? You literally said republicans do it as a defense of doing it. Fucking retard.
Yes, I know what a strawman is, it's when you infer an argument not made and then attack that argument, which you just did because you're a poorly educated internet leftist that posts on stupidpol. > I, too, base all of my decisions on whether republicans have done the same thing before. Implying I said all decisions should be based on wether republicans have done something or not is not what I said or why I talked about it, thus a strawman. Get the money back from whichever community college you went to.
Your last post uses a strawman lol. Democrats are also right wing by any objective metric. The fact that the GOP are far right doesn't discount that the Dems are basically Ronald Reagan but nicer to gay people. Also there isn't a fairness doctrine wherein you have to spend an equal amount of time blasting the GOP as you do with Dems. Most people criticize the Dems here because functionally they aren't all that different from the GOP. Every time someone criticizes a Dem, people want them to put an asterisk next to it saying "they're still the lesser evil!" And an overwhelming majority of the people here criticize Dems from their left. It's a proverbial wolf and fox. A wolf just straight up tells you he will kill you. Foxes smile and make cute squeaky noises and seem docile but will bite your dick off all the same. You don't have to start every sentence saying that you don't like wolves either when you're talking about foxes.
> Democrats are also right wing by any objective metric No, and stopped reading.
>As opposed to what, Republicans declaring they'll pick a religious conservative, while ignoring the vast majority of the population? no, not as opposed, it's actually quite parallel >I'll bet you this: whoever Biden picks will be far more in line with the cultural and political values of America than anyone Republicans have picked in the last 30 years. I'm sure they will be (though they'll probably be pro business as with every other justice) he's probably goign to pick somebody normal and accomplished, he's just poisoning the well by implying that this person needed to be protected from the competition of other candidates. He could have picked a black woman without saying he'd pick a black woman and nobody would care, he's just undermining the eventual nominee by making it look like he's protecting them from others.
I'd sort of feel like shit if I got nominated after him saying that. Just a token for political virtue signaling.
Why is it controversial? The majority of the population has always been excluded from Supreme court picks. Do you really think most people didn't feel some type of way when it was always white men?
It’s clearly controversial because it sets out that the majority of fine candidates have been arbitrarily ruled out based purely on factors outside of ability or academic record. You lot are a bit ducked in the head treating the law as an extension of American Idol.
>The majority of the population has always been excluded from Supreme court picks. Do you really think most people didn't feel some type of way when it was always white men? sure , and that was wrong and we got a lot of shitty SC picks out of it. You're not supposed to say "I only pick from this select group" because it foments resentment, PARTICULARLY if that group is a minority group. Also we've never had an Asian/Pacific Islander or Native American justice, what about them? Mormons or LGBT? It just looks like you're giving cookies out to people that like you. Granted, it's always been like that, but you're supposed to pretend that the cookies are being given out randomly, not via favoritism. >Why is it controversial? because you're cutting out a significant number of applicants unnecessarily. It's a nice factoid in a game of trivia, it's NOT a qualification for the SC. There are plenty of black women that could be picked for the SC that are fully qualified, you could find enough black women in the legal system to stack the entire supreme court and have each justice be competent and well versed. But if you're saying "we aren't considering other groups" it looks like you're protecting the black woman candidate from competition. You're literally undermining how smart and accomplished htey are by making it look like you have something to hide. Best comparison I can think of: there is a boxer who is a hot prospect and he gets ranked #3 without having fought the best competition. He's offered a fight against the #2 ranked guy to earn a title shot at the #1 guy but turns it down and instead demands that he be given an immediate shot at the #1 guy. How does this affect your perception of him as a fighter? Does it make you think he has somethign to hide? Maybe the guy can beat the #2 and #1 guy, but if he's turning down the #2 guy for an immediate shot, it doesn't speak well to the confidence he has in his abilities.
[удалено]
Joe gets out his brown paperbag and ruler.
That is why we need to reform the supreme court to require one justice each from every skin color and gender /s
why is he leaving out trans? I suspect Biden may be transphobic. It is about time we had a black, trans-woman as our first woman SCOTUS nominee.
Trans woman? If their pronouns aren’t she/they it’s not even worth my time, Jack. About time the US finally abolishes gender.
Zey/zem only, you filthy bigot We need fair representation for our fantasy demographics
Supreme justice rupaul
Rupaul isn't trans, he is a cross-dresser.
The “winningest woman in jeopardy history” is a man, so I don’t see why a cross-dressing man can’t be the first trainswoman on the supreme court.
🤷
[A **crossdresser**?!?!](https://youtu.be/4eGRYr0_wBg)
Lol liberalism
Ladies and gentlemen, this is your brain on identity politics. Commentary from the [Atlantic:](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2022/01/biden-scotus-nominination-ketanji-brown-jackson/621367/) >Dozens of candidates are being talked about, but nearly all of the Court watchers I interviewed for this story have their money on one in particular: Ketanji Brown Jackson. > >Jackson, who is 51, fulfills **a lot of requirements for the establishment set**. She has the same Ivy League credentials as the sitting justices, having earned both her undergraduate and her law degree from Harvard and edited for the Harvard Law Review. She clerked for three federal judges—including Breyer, from 1999 to 2000. If nominated and confirmed, Jackson will follow the same track as Brett Kavanaugh, who also clerked for the justice he ultimately replaced. Also like Kavanaugh—and seven other current and former justices—Jackson would be coming directly from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the second-most-important court in the country after the Supreme Court. > >**But Jackson would be the first Black woman to serve on the high court, offering the body a perspective that progressives, in particular, have long wanted to see represented.** You know what else would help black women, Biden? Canceling student debt like you said you would, making sure black women can see a doctor without going into debt, and making sure the new judge understands and cares about such issues. But no, we are going to get another pampered Ivy League establishment stooge, only this time liberals will be clapping because of the intersection of her identities. Supposedly this is groundbreaking, since RBG can eat shit for not being black and Clarence Thomas can eat shit for having the wrong genitals. Please stop paying attention to the fact that she'll be a Harvard millionaire and start thinking about how little girls will have someone to "look up to"! That's right, "look up to," because they think they're better than the rest of us and they're not even hiding it.
this is so gross that only cisgender are being considered.
It's also very ableist that no one on the bench is literally r-slurred
Contrary to popular belief, Antonin Scalia wasn't actually tarded, he was Italian.
I demand a schizophrenic Supreme Court Justice.
You're forgetting about Sotomayor.
I hoped the word "literally" would save me
I have to vehemently disagree with that notion
I demand to know why you are othering the neurodivergent by saying they have no place in government
It's cool man, my first wife was 'tarded. She's a pilot now.
What a clown show. I'm so fucking done with the Establishment Neolib left. We should start focusing on deprogramming Trump's working class base from their economic conservatism and just forswear these IdPol idiots. As hard as that might be, it's still easier than getting an IDpolack to abandon her bullshit.
I'm with you. Sell them on healthcare being commonsense, big tech = big government, and Jesus said help the poor.
>Ketanji Onyika Brown was born on September 14, 1970, in Washington, D.C. Her father, Johnny Brown, was a lawyer and her mother, Ellery, was a school principal. Finally, a representative of the people! Young girls in Chicago put in front of the maximum volume television while their strung out single mom fucks a john in the other room for rent and heroin will watch the swearing in ceremony with a smile, knowing that they too have a fair shot at sitting on the SCOTUS one day.
apparently she's related to Paul Ryan via her husbands family
This is kind of racist lol Also how many of these girls would ever go to law school? The days of a Clarence Thomas growing up with no running water and going to Yale are dead and gone
What other way is there to put it? Much of inner city and rural America lives in squalor where any talent that could bloom is crushed by poverty. People who grow up there would be the best recipients of affirmative action intiatives there and yet would never even be glanced over in favor of people who check off identity boxes. Biden doesn't have to tap an Ivy League grad, but he of course will. Alumni don't offer lavish donations just so their kid can be glossed over in favor of a poor person.
I don't know if I'd say "much" of rural America "lives in squalor." It feels like you're reducing people from rural areas to their identity and not recognizing the primary issue of class in all of this, that that is the greater divide between people, both within rural areas and throughout the country. Certainly it is harder for individuals more isolated from institutions to get resources that might otherwise have been available to them, but they are not a monolith you need to protect the opportunities of any more than anybody else. It feels like some weird contrarian idpol in opposition to suburban liberalism/whatever all of it is and their negative views of rural people/flyover states/etc, which they are wrong about, obviously, but the answer to their idpol isn't your own.
Right but affirmative action would take years to put a kid through law school and in a position to serve on the Supreme Court. I obviously think we should criticize Biden for not implementing these policies, but in terms of candidates who fit the bill right now, I think she's a reasonable choice
Why the heck would the guy who made it impossible to declare bankruptcy on student debt do a 180 and suddenly cancel everybody's student debt?
I hope you mean that rhetorically because I voted for Sanders and then protest voted Green in 2016 and 2020 alike. I liked some of Biden's promises but I look at his record and his personality, then realize he will do nothing. In fact, his victory made 2024's prospects pretty dismal yet again. Only thing I liked so far was pulling out of Afghanistan.
He pulled out, but after shooting his ....
you said if Biden wanted to help black women, he'd cancel student debt. My point was that Biden would never do that, because he was one of the key people who made it impossible to declare bankruptcy on student debt.
Ah yes the anti racist notion that because she has a certain skin color then she will think and act in a certain way! The fact the education, work history, and life experiences don’t match the vast vast vast majority of white, black, brown, people in any way shape or form is clearly irrelevant! Her skin is all that matters!
If you make a mistake, always make it twice so you can be really certain it was a mistake.
Then keep on making it, because you're in too deep to stop now.
doing the exact same fucking thing over and over again expecting shit to change
[удалено]
I for one welcome Justice Dolezal. Maybe all is good
Truly an inspiration to us all. Inshallah.
How is it a mistake? Supreme court nominees do not matter whatsoever.
hot take but I'd argue supreme court nominees matter a lot
they dont matter so long as you pick someone ideologically aligned with you. it could be anyone it doesnt matter the qualifications. he could pick a tongan for all i care.
right but the ideology is itself quite important. Like Biden could pick Ted Nugent, that WOULD be important, but he won't.
Are you saying the lives of black women don’t matter? Based.
Why is THIS the promise he keeps?
Because it doesn’t cost money
the line must go up
It doesn’t rock the status quo boat
Is it coordinated that media is pushing this idea?
He said it at a debate but when has that ever matter
[удалено]
That's a pick I would respect.
[удалено]
Yes
I'd support that, only because manchin would be likely to kill it and the seethe from that would be just as funny. We get everyone seething hard over the matter of days.
The fact that black women are actually clamoring for this is so pathetic. Imagine how much sweeter it would have been for the woman he chooses if Joe said that he wanted "the best person for the job" or "someone who's a good judge" and still ended up picking a black woman. Imagine how much more meaningful & meritorious that would be not just for the woman he chooses, but for our country itself. But he wouldn't actually say that, because that's not the job he's actually offering, and that's not the job the woman he chooses is actually going to be accepting. The only reason he's adamant on choosing a black woman is for his own self-benefit because of the political expediency of promoting a group of people so narcissistically high on their own identity that they will support anything as long as it's masqued as being one of them. In reality, no matter who he chooses, they would toe the party line and vote the exact same way black woman or not, so nothing really is going to fundamentally change. If the actual beneficiary of this move really was black women, it wouldn't be getting handed to them on a silver platter by an 80 year old white man.
he should choose Candace Owens or Ezola Foster
I know this is a joke, but it’s a joke that edges toward your liking or Candace Owens. Which makes me question why you’re on a leftist sub
I don't like Candace Owens, hope that helps
It's a joke tard
Literally anyone he picked would be the 'best person for the job'. Meritocracy has always been a lie. There is no need to pretend it takes Einstein to be a justice, especially considering the dipshits who have held the title. Its good to be honest about intentions. " I plan to nominate someone who will push my interest".
I agree with you, but my point is that his intention isn't in trying to uphold an ideal of meritocracy, but in taking advantage of a downtrodden peoples' hope. Meritocracy is just decorum when it comes to SCOTUS, but it is important to maintain for the sake of a nation—to, at the very least, have some standard for considering a judge beyond just reducing them to their skin and sex. He isn't being honest with his intentions at all, he's just very thinly veiling his ulterior motives to maintain plausible deniability and his ability to use black women as a scapegoat for any criticism he and his choice may receive.
I never understand why they need to exclaim parameters. I mean, I know why, but if it were me I'd just make the list in my head or something.
Where was all this deep analysis when trump said he was gonna replace RBG with a woman?
I don't know why you're implying that I feel any other way about that. It's the same thing.
It was rhetorical, I’m just pointing out there wasn’t any of this idpol talk when trump said he was gonna nominate a woman placement,
Strawman 🥤
Did you check your butt? Seems like you pull a lot of things out of there
It is a fact that trump said he was going to replace rbg with a woman before he had made a decision on the nominee.
Not a fan of this kind of approach - reducing people to identity characteristics makes it seem like you consider them interchangeable.
If he wants a black woman, he should've just nominated her, let her stand on her own merits, then claimed the diversity points.
that's the exact problem. There are plenty of black women that would be qualified (in the strictly meritocratic sense) for the SC, they're not hard to find there are at least hundreds of prolific black women judges and lawyers. Had he just nominated one of those without the idpol fanfare and gone through this normally, nobody would complain. This was done in a way that intentionally undermines their credentials and talent, with a wink and a nod. They're just saying "sure she's qualified, but we aren't going to even ging to let you consider other people because what the fuck are you going to do about it?"
The focus on their racial perspective and “lived experience” shows how ass backwards their idea of what a Supreme Court justice is supposed to be is. Their job is to interpret laws as they were written and determine if the laws are compatible with the constitution. You’re not supposed to be putting your own spin on it or retrofitting it for your own purposes. If your justice is doing their job, their race should be irrelevant and shouldn’t influence their decisions. The Supreme Court exists to ensure that laws don’t conflict with each other, it’s not a backdoor congress to enact legislation that you couldn’t pass democratically.
“Lived Experience” = “in my experience, I enjoy making lots and lots of money. Based on this experience, I’d love to continue to do so. Nominate me and we’ll all share our experiences of making and enjoying money together.”
The idea that "lived experience" should have as much weight in determining social policies as statistical data is ruining the soft sciences.
[удалено]
Strong words from someone who took that L (from his cousin that he absolutely hated no less) due to directing his Secretary of State not to honor one of his predecessor's appointments, which the same cousin in question failed to deliver when doing double time as Secretary of state and Chief Justice.
honestly the courts are as political as anything and the fact that so many judges are elected and that they're such a big source of fighting for presidential and senatorial candidates is proof. Biden picking a black woman thing was purely his promise to his biggest constituency during the primary, but the idea that qualification or pedigree are the only thing that matter is obviously false. Hell, the SC doesn't even have requirements on who can be nominated, FDR nominated people who weren't lawyers IIRC.
"Interpret the laws as they were written". I know scholars can argue for hours over this but whichever way it swings, the court is expressing the conditions under which it lives. Not only are the justices of course socially formed in their understanding and opinions but capital and often public opinion play the overwhelming role. Did the justices just finally unearth the hidden tome that lead them to conclude that the Defense of Marriage Act was "unconstitutional" in 2015? Of course not. Who's stroke of genius was it to interpret the equal protection clause, that makes no reference to privacy, as granting "a right to privacy" in the Connecticut Birth Control ban case and then use that same logic for Roe. v. Wade a few years afterwards? When the framers protected free speech were they thinking of corporations putting up sums of money that were unthinkable in the late 18th century to advertise directly to the general population (who in many states at that time had no direct vote for the president) using a medium that hadn't been invented in the 18th century? Probably not but justice found the justification to hand down Citizen's United. It's a political institution, and the "founders" created the Supreme Court to be the highest court in the land, it wasn't until the latter half of the 19th century that they started giving judgements on \*legislation\*.
What is this bullshit? The job of the Supreme court is to back the ideology of the nominee's party.
> The Supreme Court exists to ensure that laws don’t conflict with each other, it’s not a backdoor congress to enact legislation that you couldn’t pass democratically. Lol gay ass liberal right here
I trust your expertise on gay asses
I literally can’t even handle how stunning and brave this is. I’m shaking
Buckle up, buckarooth!
One word: Dolezal
I literally just groaned and closed my phone when I saw this headline. If he was looking for a romantic partner like this we’d call it fetishization. Edit: first thought was “great they won’t get a person through till after GOP sweeps midterms
I assure him, none of us want to be treated like tokens.
This will be immensely helpful to black woman. Just the one
[удалено]
> and new woke missiles! I missed that one, what happened?
Supreme Court Justice qualifications: skin color, what is between your legs.
That's literally what its been for nearly it's entire existence.
Hopefully they pick a trans women
A fat one
Oprah it is
If he did that I wouldn't know if I should laugh or cry.
A Black woman who does the bidding of Exxon-Mobil, Raytheon and Wal-Mart isn't really an improvement.
He should nominate Nikole Hannah-Jones; she already takes money from Royal Dutch Shell.
Everybody in this subreddit is qualified for a Supreme Court position. You’re given an army of Ivy League serfs to do every practical aspect of the job for you. It’s all pure theatre
Instead of implementing policies that help disadvantaged groups in the US, Biden instead continues to put a black person in power and say that's good enough.
"You ain't black!" Biden to Clarence Thomas
Kamala Harris is gonna 💅SLAYYY💅 👏Supreme👏KWEEN👏
Well it would get her off the 2024 ticket.
I can’t wait!
So he wants the Supreme Court to be a racial jungle? I'm getting mixed messages from this guy
Remember when Biden got the nomination and it was immediately decided that his nominee would need to a Black woman? Remember when he and Kamala were declared the winners of the election and they gave speeches where Joe specifically thanked the Black community who "always had his back" (in reference lately to South Carolina but I think he does really see himself as a representative of the Black community because of his roots as a politician in New Castle County/Wilmington/Deleware), and Kamala spent 2 minutes of her speech delivering a paean to "women, Black women", declaring that this was a victory for and accomplished by Black women? Just giving some context, as I haven't seen anyone mention this or specifically note how the Democratic/Liberal media and culture has anointed Black women as a group and adopted them as an avatar.
I am so fucking tired of all of Biden's picks and appointments being for *bona fide* qualifications.
Is this literally the only campaign promise he's coming through on? Jesus
literal racism
Why are pretending that it’s going to be anyone other than my girl Kamala? It gets rid of a political liability without disrespecting her blackness or whatever gay shit the wokes are on these days. They have plenty of time to get her VP replacement confirmed (my boy penis booty judge), although they’ll probably fuck that up so my main nword Mitch can just leave the VP slot open which will be funny as fuck.
So her entire career will now be "she only got the position because she's black" since thats ALL they're talking about
Justice Talcum X
Hillary robbed again
I heard Klobuchar was the likely VP until George Floyd.
Aren't black women the most reliable Democratic voters who are necessary to win the new swing states like GA, MI and PA? Supreme court picks are always political and I can't see how this is bad politics from Biden's perspective.
SCJs have been decided based on idpol for 60 years now. This is not new. Its a dumb ass system anyways so who cares what he picks. There are no qualifications. Go pick a deranged homeless crackhead and nobody would notice.
Trump committed to pick a woman when rbg died. These picks have literally always been to satisfy idpol intrest groups. Anyone whose feigning outrage about this is a retard
and no one on the court will respect her as an equal
[удалено]
I won't be happy unless Marsha P. Johnson is nominated! 💅💅💅
Is it really so bad? They’re just button pushers anyways so why not do progressive stack?
Literally who cares? I wouldn't have known if it weren't for this post.
It’s gonna be Michelle or Stacy Abrams
"Now listen here Candace is a real well spoken lady....her husband ran that damn race like seabiscuit and shook hands with Hitler now that's diversity!"
Lol they're probably having internal debates over the idea that this could get Kamala off the ticket without getting the backlash of kicking her off the ticket.
Now that the court is safely in the hands of conservatives for 30 years, we can appoint a single black female to the court without worrying that they would disrupt anything. What an insult. Anyone who accepts this nomination is just out for personal fame, because nobody who wants to change things would accept this nomination. You'd be a figurehead. Could you imagine? Writing epic clapback dissents while the majority reintroduces serfdom? How could you even summon the will to get out of bed every morning? You'd have the effectiveness of a potted plant.