The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

[Uncle Ted]

Interesting fact: Jackson is related to former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan by marriage. I would think she has the advantage sitting on an Appeals Court versus Kruger who serves CA Supreme Court. Also, Jackson clerked for Beyer.

That would put Mitt Romney's vote is in the bag... but what if that fact comes out in the hearings? That will disqualified Jackson for a lot of brainless dems.

[chrisrenrut]

Harris seems way too dumb to be on the bench.

I mean, people kept saying Mike Lee could have gotten nod under Trump. So maybe intelligence is not a high bar when politics is involved.

[BlueK]

The justices should retire before they die. I mean, RBG was barely breathing for the last decade of her life. Maybe having justices that don’t think too highly of themselves would be a start.

Isn't Thomas at least 80?

[Moliere]

Isn't Thomas at least 80?

Looks like he's 73 and seems to be in decent health for that age. I'd guess that if the GOP wins the senate and presidency in 2024 that he'd consider stepping down.

[myboynoah]

Maybe he could get COVID.

[BlueK]

Is this comment by Sen. Wicker of Mississippi, racist? I say yes in that we don't know who the nominee is yet, so doesn't it mean he believes it's not possible a Black woman could be qualified?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/29/polit...oter_expansion

As opposed to what Lindsay Graham said:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...ecirculation=1

[chrisrenrut]

Is this comment by Sen. Wicker of Mississippi, racist? I say yes in that we don't know who the nominee is yet, so doesn't it mean he believes it's not possible a Black woman could be qualified?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/29/polit...oter_expansion

I kind of get what he is saying. Certainly there are qualified black women for the position. But there are likely also Latino and Asian American women as well that won’t be considered. And should the goal be to choose the MOST qualified person, regardless of race or gender? It’s feels very affirmative action/quota to state at the outset that the gender and race are the most important qualifications..

[BlueK]

I kind of get what he is saying. Certainly there are qualified black women for the position. But there are likely also Latino and Asian American women as well that won’t be considered. And should the goal be to choose the MOST qualified person, regardless of race or gender? It’s feels very affirmative action/quota to state at the outset that the gender and race are the most important qualifications..

Undoubtedly Biden should have just done it rather than announce he wanted to first.

[beefytee]

I kind of get what he is saying. Certainly there are qualified black women for the position. But there are likely also Latino and Asian American women as well that won’t be considered. And should the goal be to choose the MOST qualified person, regardless of race or gender? It’s feels very affirmative action/quota to state at the outset that the gender and race are the most important qualifications..

What does MOST qualified even mean when it comes to Supreme Court justices. Like anyone could even know that Napoleon! It does sound like a seriously dismissive argument to me.

[Non Sequitur]

Undoubtedly Biden should have just done it rather than announce he wanted to first.

Biden knows that Republicans will oppose his pick regardless of who it is, so he might as well frame that opposition along the lines of race and sex(e.g. Wicker: team racist; Graham: team open minded who will oppose Biden's pick for reason's that have nothing to do with race or gender). Politically for Biden, it's the correct move.

[USUC]

Biden know that Republicans will oppose his pick regardless of who it is, so he might as well frame that opposition along the lines of race and sex(e.g. Wicker: team racist; Graham: team open minded who will oppose Biden's pick for reason's that have nothing to do with race or gender). Politically for Biden, it's the correct move.

Politically? I thinks it's debatable if this strategy will be good or bad politically. His base will love it, but not sold it is a big enough base to rely on to win elections.

But in terms of the correct move for the eventual nominee and the continued culture war, it's most certainly not. If your goal is to get an African American female on the court, just do it. Don't tell the world your strategy. Rightly or wrongly, this candidate will be plagued with accusations of an affirmative action pick the rest of their time on the bench. And who benefits from that?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Politically? I thinks it's debatable if this strategy will be good or bad politically. His base will love it, but not sold it is a big enough base to rely on to win elections.

But in terms of the correct move for the eventual nominee and the continued culture war, it's most certainly not. If your goal is to get an African American female on the court, just do it. Don't tell the world your strategy. Rightly or wrongly, this candidate will be plagued with accusations of an affirmative action pick the rest of their time on the bench. And who benefits from that?

This is correct.

[All-American]

Politically? I thinks it's debatable if this strategy will be good or bad politically. His base will love it, but not sold it is a big enough base to rely on to win elections.

But in terms of the correct move for the eventual nominee and the continued culture war, it's most certainly not. If your goal is to get an African American female on the court, just do it. Don't tell the world your strategy. Rightly or wrongly, this candidate will be plagued with accusations of an affirmative action pick the rest of their time on the bench. And who benefits from that?

I don't disagree with any of this. But on the question of who benefits, this is Biden following through with a campaign promise he made to shore up his base during the election. It's not a great political move in the here and now, but it's the price he paid to buy the goodwill in 2020. No use questioning whether he paid too high a price now that the bill has come due.

[Non Sequitur]

Politically? I thinks it's debatable if this strategy will be good or bad politically. His base will love it, but not sold it is a big enough base to rely on to win elections.

But in terms of the correct move for the eventual nominee and the continued culture war, it's most certainly not. If your goal is to get an African American female on the court, just do it. Don't tell the world your strategy. Rightly or wrongly, this candidate will be plagued with accusations of an affirmative action pick the rest of their time on the bench. And who benefits from that?

For the record, I think it's tragic that the words Politics and Supreme Court ever exist in the same paragraph. It's tragic that Supreme Court picks have become political spoils and Supreme Court justices have become political pawns. I hate that it is necessary for a Presidential candidate to promise that a Supreme Court pick will be based on anything other than merit and respect for the constitution. I hate what we have become, so when I say that Biden did what was politically correct, I am being somewhat ironic.

[fusnik]

I don't disagree with any of this. But on the question of who benefits, this is Biden following through with a campaign promise he made to shore up his base during the election. It's not a great political move in the here and now, but it's the price he paid to buy the goodwill in 2020. No use questioning whether he paid too high a price now that the bill has come due.

Bill come due, good Lord.

Did you feel the same way when Trump took a list created by the Federalist Society and promised to outsource all judicial appointments to a third party?

Biden doesn’t win SC without promising the female AA appointment, if he doesn’t win SC he doesn’t get the nom, if he doesn’t get the nom we still have Trump. It’s not really that big of a deal.

There’s plenty of qualified and deserving AA jurists he can choose from if the rumored folks are on his bench.