Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer

herb749

Well-Known Member
Biden promised a black female VP who is a disaster.

Then he promised a black woman SC justice. Can we expect he will do better at this . Nope . :doh:
 

Kyle

Ultra-MAGA
PREMO Member
162237
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Even if the black woman chosen is a top of the line, wholly qualified and great lawyer and defender of the Constitution and an American patriot, she will carry the Affirmative Action stigma of being chosen because of her race and gender.

Of course I don't believe that is the black woman that gets picked, but it is unfair for the Justice to have to carry that stigma but IMO it will be deserved. She will be able to thank Joe Biden for that. If he had just kept his big mouth shut and picked someone it would not have been so flagrant.
 

Kyle

Ultra-MAGA
PREMO Member
Biden Filibustered a Black Woman Judge’s Nomination for Two Years

President Joe Biden has pledged to nominate the first black woman to the Supreme Court, but he seems to have forgotten about the time he filibustered a black woman judge’s nomination to America’s second-highest court for two years.

Way back in 2003 through 2005, when Joe Biden was still a Democrat senator from Delaware, President George W. Bush nominated Janice Rogers Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, but due to her conservative views, Joe Biden and the Democrats filibustered her nomination, blocking a final vote on her confirmation. Bush nominated Brown for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003 after she served as a justice on the California Supreme Court since 1996; she did not get confirmed until June 8, 2005.


 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron

Her first name is enough to disqualify her in my mind. I don't need to know anything more about her.

But of course if she turns out to be some flaming batshit crazy activist (and she almost certainly will be), the Republicans can't criticize her or vote against her or the media will scream that they're racist/misogynist/blahblahblah.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Her first name is enough to disqualify her in my mind. I don't need to know anything more about her.

But of course if she turns out to be some flaming batshit crazy activist (and she almost certainly will be), the Republicans can't criticize her or vote against her or the media will scream that they're racist/misogynist/blahblahblah.

Read a bit - she's no Kamala. She's no slouch. On the other hand - hasn't been a judge very long.

On the other hand - Wiki mentions she led protests against a FELLOW STUDENT who had a Confedrate flag draped in his window. THAT tells me all I need to know about her grasp of the first amendment. The whole REASON WE HAVE ONE is so people can say things we don't like.
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
On the other hand - Wiki mentions she led protests against a FELLOW STUDENT who had a Confedrate flag draped in his window. THAT tells me all I need to know about her grasp of the first amendment. The whole REASON WE HAVE ONE is so people can say things we don't like.
Well, Hell! Wasn't she just exercising her 1st Amendment rights? Did she incite violence upon the student? Seems she might have a better grasp then some.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Well, Hell! Wasn't she just exercising her 1st Amendment rights? Did she incite violence upon the student? Seems she might have a better grasp then some.

The student who did it said she was just reminding herself of home. She was decorating her own dorm room, albeit publicly.

Harvard ultimately supported the student, however grudgingly.

I don't see how freedom of speech extends to somene whose objective is to silence speech.
It's often been my phrase, when someone is saying something I think needs challenging - by saying - "my voice is as free as yours".
It IS free speech to voice your objection: it is NOT free speech if the aim of your protest is to silence someone ELSE'S free speech.

Freedom of speech is meaningless if all speech must undergo some litmus test as to what is permissible.
 

spr1975wshs

Mostly settled in...
Ad Free Experience
Patron
Freedom of speech is meaningless if all speech must undergo some litmus test as to what is permissible.
That has been my understanding since American Civics classes staring in grade school.

To paraphrase one of the Enlightenment Era philosophers, who was an inspiration to those who founded our Constitutional Republic; "I may not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to your death your right to say it."
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
The student who did it said she was just reminding herself of home. She was decorating her own dorm room, albeit publicly.

Harvard ultimately supported the student, however grudgingly.

I don't see how freedom of speech extends to somene whose objective is to silence speech.
It's often been my phrase, when someone is saying something I think needs challenging - by saying - "my voice is as free as yours".
It IS free speech to voice your objection: it is NOT free speech if the aim of your protest is to silence someone ELSE'S free speech.

Freedom of speech is meaningless if all speech must undergo some litmus test as to what is permissible.
And I bet you don't see the irony by imposing your litmus test.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Well, Hell! Wasn't she just exercising her 1st Amendment rights? Did she incite violence upon the student? Seems she might have a better grasp then some.

It tells me she's intolerant of those who don't share her views. Imagine her outrage had someone protested her BLM banner.....

Besides, typically a protest is against the government or some other powerful entity, not against a random person who does something that triggers your feelz. Otherwise I'm going to protest against everyone who puts pineapple on their pizza.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I nbelieve she will be accepted because I believe she is sure to get ate least two vote from republicans Liz Cheney and this Kinzinger ass wipe.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
In fairness - all that SHOULD matter is her qualifications for the job. She doesn’t even have to be the very best candidate. Just a qualified one. SCOTUS is *supposed* to be totally apolitical.

That said, ever since Bork, the Democrats have never voted that way. A ‘liberal’ candidate almost always gets every Democrat vote; a ‘conservative’ rarely gets even one. Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3; Breyer himself, 87-9. Even Sotomayor and Kagan were confirmed with 9 and 5 Republican votes.

Sadly the time is long past that political opinions are not to be figured into the calculus of confirmation. The Republicans have only slowly caught on and in truth, a few will still be magnanimous and vote without regard for political leanings.

And it still erodes my faith in the courts. You’d think that decisions on the Law and the Constitution would usually be lopsided. It just can’t be that every decision follows only a Democrat view or a Republican one. I realize that details of the law are nuanced but I can’t see how it always comes down to your personal opinion rather than an objective measure of the case with regard to the law as it is written (as opposed to what you THINK it should say).
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
In fairness - all that SHOULD matter is her qualifications for the job. She doesn’t even have to be the very best candidate. Just a qualified one. SCOTUS is *supposed* to be totally apolitical.

That said, ever since Bork, the Democrats have never voted that way. A ‘liberal’ candidate almost always gets every Democrat vote; a ‘conservative’ rarely gets even one. Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3; Breyer himself, 87-9. Even Sotomayor and Kagan were confirmed with 9 and 5 Republican votes.

Sadly the time is long past that political opinions are not to be figured into the calculus of confirmation. The Republicans have only slowly caught on and in truth, a few will still be magnanimous and vote without regard for political leanings.

And it still erodes my faith in the courts. You’d think that decisions on the Law and the Constitution would usually be lopsided. It just can’t be that every decision follows only a Democrat view or a Republican one. I realize that details of the law are nuanced but I can’t see how it always comes down to your personal opinion rather than an objective measure of the case with regard to the law as it is written (as opposed to what you THINK it should say).
Magnanimous that a great word for Chicken sht republicans.
 
Top