In addition to President Reagan saying he would appoint a WOMAN (not just "the best qualified") to the SCOTUS, he also looked to appointing a person of "Italian extraction" (not just "the best qualified") to the Court as well.
No one accused Reagan of using affirmative action or being insulting to all other candidates on both of those actions.
Reagan: "We don't have an Italian-American on the court, so we ought to have one."
I wonder what was different about his choice of the first female appointed to the Court and the first Italo-American appointed to the Court from President Biden's choice to appoint the first Black woman. Hmmmmmmm...?
29 comments:
Here's one time Sen Lindsey Graham was correct when he said the following...
"Michelle Childs is incredibly qualified. There's no affirmative-action component if you pick her,"
"I can't think of a better person for President Biden to consider for the Supreme Court than Michelle Childs. She has wide support in our state. She's considered to be a fair-minded, highly gifted jurist. She's one of the most decent people I've ever met. It would be good for the court to have somebody who's not at Harvard or Yale."
"I don't see Michelle Childs as an act of affirmative action,"...
"I do see putting a Black woman on the court making the court more like America. In the history of our country, we've only had five women serve and two African American men."
We've established that other presidents, including both Reagan and Trump did exactly what Biden has done, prioritizing a SCOTUS selection of underrepresented, yet fully qualified people, to more look like America.
And that's exactly what Sen Graham has noted, and affirmed.
The people under consideration by Pres Biden are all fully qualified to sit on the SCOTUS, many having already been confirmed to the federal judiciary by the very people now calling them unfit or unqualified. Think Teodoro Cruz.
This particular line of criticism of Biden is about race, driving a wedge and stoking resentment and anger among the GOP base. Nothing more.
The question is why?
Dave, I give ole Spineless Ms. Lindsey about a week before running it all back and, once again, groveling at the feet of King Clorox. I guess it's time for me to send Ms. Lindsey another spine keyring. The boy just doesn't seem to know what a spine is or how to use one. :)
Dave "The question is why?"
Maybe skud can answer, since he brought this up in a previous thread:
skud: "...so why did obiden start the discussion not with my handlers will appoint the best qualified but with we will select a black women."
Again, we point out again that our friend, skud, had nothing to say about Pres. Reagan DOING EXACTLY THE SAME THING!
The question is why?
This from Jamelle Bouie:
"But what does it mean for a Supreme Court justice to be “qualified”? The Constitution is silent on the question, and there’s not much to take from the framers either. To the extent that “qualified” means anything to most people, it’s that the nominee has ample experience on the bench, a standard in keeping with the idea that the court is the final rung on the meritocratic ladder for judges and other legal elites.
If significant experience as a judge is what it means to be qualified for the Supreme Court, however, then most iterations of the court have been patently unqualified. Of the 108 men (and two women) to have served on the court before 2007, according to the legal historian Henry J. Abraham in his history of Supreme Court appointments, 26 had 10 or more years of experience on any court, state or federal. Thirty-eight justices had no judicial experience, and the remaining 46 had only token experience adjudicating disputes from the bench.
Abraham notes that “many of the most illustrious members of the court were judicially inexperienced,” among them eight of the 16 chief justices (leaving the interim chief John Rutledge out of it): John Marshall, Salmon P. Chase, Morrison R. Waite, Melville W. Fuller, Charles Evans Hughes, Harlan F. Stone, Earl Warren and William H. Rehnquist."
IMO, Republicans have nominated Supreme Court justices based on gender and race. They would not hear Merrick Garland - in an election year - but had no problems jamming through the Coney Barrett nomination during a presidential election --Americans HAD VOTED and WERE VOTING during her nomination and confirmation!
Republicans don't have a leg to stand on criticizing Biden's Supreme Court pick, certainly not based on the behavior, qualifications, and partisanship of the three most recently confirmed justices nominated by Trump and ushered through by McConnell.
I think it's great that Biden is bringing the racists out of the woodwork. Their howls of outrage and opposition based purely on bigotry will make it easier to identify them come election time.
Qualified...
Do we look at judicial temperament and experience? If so, the ABA for years has been the gold standard for years across many different administrations.
Pres Trump nominated five people rated by the ABA as "not qualified." Three were found so by a majority of members of the ABA and two by every single member. One nomination was subsequently withdrawn by the Trump Admin.
Or do we look at the Constitutional requirements?
The site, SupremeCourt.gov states the following... The Constitution does not specify qualifications for Justices such as age, education, profession, or native-born citizenship. A Justice does not have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate...
So we are faced with the following reality...
People like Skud, Sen Cruz and others alleging that particular Biden nominees for the SCOTUS are unqualified should tell us how their determination was made.
If they choose the judicial temperament route, fine. Then please explain why in the past, with Trump's nominees, there was seldom, if ever an issue, even with people universally judged to be unqualified.
If they choose the Constitutional route, the reality is that our president could pick one of us, and if the Senate confirms us, apparently, we'd be qualified.
I think it should be...
1. Merrick Garland for what happened to him.
2. Michelle Childs because... DAVE!
3. Barak Obama because man oh man would that piss off the repugs.
Mike "3. Barak Obama because man oh man would that piss off the repugs."
A great idea in theory, but it wouldn't work. Former President Obama would have to recuse himself from many cases because of issues that came before the Court that were debated or adjudicated during his presidency. For example: Anything to do with the ACA!
Dave, and everyone,
Remember this?:
"On October 3, 2005, Harriet Miers was nominated for Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by President George W. Bush to replace retired Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Miers was, at the time, White House Counsel, and had previously served in several roles both during Bush's tenure as Governor of Texas and President.
The nomination almost immediately drew criticism, much of it from within the President's own party: David Frum castigated an "unforced error," and Robert Bork denounced it a "disaster" and "a slap in the face to the conservatives who've been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years." Hearings before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee had been scheduled to begin on November 7, and members of the Republican leadership had stated before the nomination that they aimed to have the nominee confirmed before Thanksgiving (November 24). Miers withdrew her nomination on October 27, 2005, and Bush nominated Samuel Alito four days later."
Dave D."I think it's great that Biden is bringing the racists out of the woodwork. Their howls of outrage and opposition based purely on bigotry will make it easier to identify them come election time."
The more we research the history of presidents and whom they nominated, the more we understand that the "howls of outrage and opposition based purely on bigotry" is just that.
Presidents have ALWAYS chosen nominees to the SCOTUS based on ideology, race, and gender. ALWAYS.
What is going on now with the Trumpublicans is merely knee-jerk reaction to what President Biden (and Reagan, Clinton, and Bush, etc., etc.) is doing by promising to put a Black woman on the Court.
BluebullAmerica, We'll wait to see what Graham does now that he's shown us his authentic feelings.
Remember when he showed us his authentic feelings about Trump and called him a "race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot and kook?"
Yeah. He certainly walked those true feelings back and firmly kissed Trump on his prodigious orange posterior.
Latest polls say 76% of Americans disagree with Biden limiting his choice to black women only. The poll also said they agree with the names put fourth so far as possible candidates (all black women). What do those contradicting results tell us?
Anonymous, Those contradicting results tell me that most people don't think before giving an opinion, and that most opinions are not based on knowledge or history of the subject on which they are giving an opinion
They're just opinions.
Republican Brass 2000 to present = Rank Hypocrisy
Republican Voters - Confused by the glitter of the "golden lies" of tRump and the Brass. As as well as rightwing media.
Those screams of pain and fury from the racists in the GQP -- Yeah, like candy to my soul. Howl little racist bastards, howl. Daddy lives for your pain. . . :)
Reagan did say he would appoint the best qualified women. Garland has shown he is a very good political appointee because he does march in step with what obiden handlers say. Sick the FBI on parents because they object to the education their children are receiving. Would have been a great SCOTUS who right along side sonia and her 100,000 kids in ICU would rubber stamp whatever the democrats wanted.
Ms Shaw, Just because a poll does not share you opinion does not mean it is not correct. The number Anon stated was from the poll conducted by the right wing ABC.
skudrunner: "Sick[sic] the FBI on parents because they object to the education their children are receiving."
That's a lie. And you know it because I correct this nasty piece of propaganda from FAUX NOOZ in another thread.
Fact check: FBI is not using threat tags on parents who protest at school board meetings
Tags used to track threats against school officials
The FBI's counterterrorism and criminal investigative division created an "EDUOFFICIALS" tag to track cases that involve threats against "school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff," according to an email exchange between FBI officials, attached to Jordan's letter.
Nothing in the letter states that the tag will be used against parents who protest at school board meetings.
A tag is a statistical tool used to track information for review, according to the FBI, which uses a wide array of tags to track cases of different types, such as human trafficking or drug trafficking.
The FBI said in an emailed statement to USA TODAY that it must have information "indicating the potential use of force or violence and a potential violation of federal law," for a division to open an investigation.
And this was instituted because of IDIOTS like this woman who threatened the lives of people at school board meetings:
42-year-old Amelia King was captured on a video broadcast addressing the Page County Public Schools board during a meeting about proposed mask requirements, saying, “My children will not come to school on Monday with a mask. That's not happening. And I will bring every single gun, loaded and ready.”Jan 24, 2022
skud: "Ms Shaw, Just because a poll does not share you opinion does not mean it is not correct. The number Anon stated was from the poll conducted by the right wing ABC."
You didn't read my response. I did NOT say the opinion poll was wrong. I said they're "just opinions." Try being accurate the next time, it's a liberating experience.
What Anonymous wrote:
"Latest polls say 76% of Americans disagree with Biden limiting his choice to black women only. The poll also said they agree with the names put fourth[sic] so far as possible candidates (all black women). What do those contradicting results tell us?"
How I responded: "Anonymous, Those contradicting results tell me that most people don't think before giving an opinion, and that most opinions are not based on knowledge or history of the subject on which they are giving an opinion
They're just opinions.
Skud repeated his lie after being informed of the truth.
"Sick the FBI on parents because they object to the education their children are receiving."
This is an example of, "Repeat a lie enough times and it becomes the truth"..to the liar.
It works for small lies, and the Big Lie, as Trump's role model explained in Mein Kampf:
"...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation….'
"Taking note of a supposed "spike" in harassment and intimidating behavior directed at public school officials, Attorney General Merrick Garland has instructed the FBI to be on the lookout for angry parents demanding accountability at school board meetings."..
I guess I used he incorrect term. I should have said monitoring, sorry for the confusion.
Seriously what conflicting polls (which are of course are just opinions}. 76% disagree with selecting only a black women but agree that the choices are the best black women. No contradiction there unless the answer is not understood. All polls are just opinion like the one that says biden has an approval rating of 38-40%. Only an opinion so from now on polls do not matter because joey is doing a super job.
Have you been able to dig out yet?
Saw where you are suppose to get more this week, stay warm and safe.
54% of American adults between the ages of 16-74 read below a 6th grade level. So that means we have an epidemic of illiteracy," professor Brittney Cooper reacts to book banning. "If you make people ignorant, then it becomes much easier to control them.
I agree with your statement about polls which is why I don't pay much attention to polls and ignore people who use polls to prove their point.
Here's what Reagan said in a speech about nominating a woman for the SCOTUS:
"One of the accusations has been that I am somehow opposed to full and equal opportunities for women in America," Reagan said. "I regret even having to address this issue for fear that discussing it might lend even a scintilla of credence to such a charge."
Reagan then said he opposed "tokenism and false quotas" to correct past injustices. But he added: "I am also acutely aware, however, that within the guidelines of excellence, appointments can carry enormous symbolic significance. This permits us to guide by example -- to show how deep our commitment is and to give meaning to what we profess. One way I intend to live up to that commitment is to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court."
When Reagan made his FORMAL announcement with Sandra Day O'Connor at his side, his handlers had inserted the word "qualified" before "woman." So yes, the second time around when he made his formal announcement, Reagan said "qualified woman."
skud, check out my photo taken at the beginning of the blizzard on Saturday.
Republican Senator John Kennedy on nominating a Black woman to SCOTUS: “No. 1, I want a nominee who knows a law book from a J. Crew catalog.”
What???
Sen. John Kennedy needs to say he's a racist by other words.
So he implies Black women are ignorant and a threat to white conservatives.
Only ignorant duped white bigots fall for that. They always do, because of years of indoctrination.
American fascism is winning its war on democracy.
Garland needs to choose between being the greatest AG or the worst, Trump or our Constitutional rule of law, and time is running out.
Rev, You wrote
"People like Skud, Sen Cruz and others alleging that particular Biden nominees for the SCOTUS are unqualified should tell us how their determination was made."
Please point out where I said they were not qualified. I understand you need to slam someone and that would be me but to outright lie, which you did, is beneath you.
Post a Comment