quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
But it's comforting to know we have you to keep us apprised of the inner workings and deep thoughts of these supreme court justices.

He's simply applying logic to what he knows of matters involving the field of law. (That is what he does, you know )

Explain your hypothesis of what possible pressure the Biden Administration could bring to bear upon a sitting Supreme Court Justice to persuade them to retire before they wish to retire?

Then there are Alan Dershowitz' comments. Certainly you know who he is? Do you believe he's making his recounting up? Remember: Though famously a civil libertarian, he more often came to Team Trump's defense than not, in recent history. He appears to be that many here are convinced does not exist: A rational, ethical, honest liberal.

I don't doubt for a minute the "announcement" being made at this time, before Breyer intended it, is Democrat machination, but I highly doubt they're forcing him off the bench.

Breyer has been on the bench for 27 years in a position for his lifetime or as long as he wants to serve.

He's reached the highest level of judicial service and seen it all, along with knowing the power and permanency of his position.

He left because he's seen it all and has nothing left to prove. The idea that a justice on the Supreme Court left because liberal groups don't want another Ginsburg situation is laughable. He left because he's ready to move on with his private life.

They are keenly aware of of the voices out there talking about retirement just like with Ginsburg but it carries no weight with them. They are truly untouchable.

For those thinking he volunteered to retire....

Breyer is in the category of "elderly". Some of the elderly age better than others, and there is no standard, but having seen elder financial abuse first hand, Is it possible that he isn't thinking things through, and allowing others to set his path, you know, the way that scammers are able to scam the elderly every day into doing things which only benefit the scammers?

I don't know much about Breyer, and I certainly don't know how competent he is, but I thought I'd put in my 2 cents.

I'm certain I'll be corrected shortly if my comment is off base.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Breyer has been on the bench for 27 years in a position for his lifetime or as long as he wants to serve.

He's reached the highest level of judicial service and seen it all, along with knowing the power and permanency of his position.

He left because he's seen it all and has nothing left to prove. The idea that a justice on the Supreme Court left because liberal groups don't want another Ginsburg situation is laughable. He left because he's ready to move on with his private life.

They are keenly aware of of the voices out there talking about retirement just like with Ginsburg but it carries no weight with them. They are truly untouchable.

It is absolutely certain that Supreme Court justices consider their replacement when choosing the timing of their retirement. Breyer didn't just randomly decide it was time to enjoy his sunset years. He wants to be replaced by someone with the same judicial philosophy and is smart enough to know that the best chance for that to happen is to retire when there is a Democrat president and Democrats in control of the Senate. He can see as well as anyone that there is a pretty good chance that the GOP will control the senate next year, and a pretty decent chance that there will be a Republican in the White House in 2025. That means probably waiting another 6 years to maybe possibly have the chance to retire under favorable conditions in terms of a liberal successor.

For an 83 year old thinking of retiring, there really was no other option but to do it this year.

quote:

Originally posted by radioman:
I don't know much about Breyer, and I certainly don't know how competent he is, but I thought I'd put in my 2 cents.

Nope. I would venture that Justice Breyer and I would agree on very little regarding the law and how it should be interpreted, but I have never once in any of his written opinions found him to be mentally diminished in any way. He either opted to retire on his own, or succumbed to some sort of pressure by this administration (unlikely), but regardless, I believe he made a very reasoned decision.

And just to beat a dead horse a little more, his retirement isn't the relevant issue here. Who replaces him for a life appointment is. And given the current administration, I'm sure that person will be quite the legal scholar.

Black females are 7% of the U.S. population. And it turns out that 10% of federal judges are women of color.

So how dumb is it to deny "even consideration" of over 90% of the potential candidates for the Supreme Court?

biden pretty much guarantees he is ignoring most of the top 10 % of outstanding potential candidates

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mitch McConnell:

"the American people elected a Senate that is evenly split at 50-50. To the degree that President Biden received a mandate, it was to govern from the middle, steward our institutions, and unite America,"

“The President must not outsource this important decision to the radical left. The American people deserve a nominee with demonstrated reverence for the written text of our laws and our Constitution.”

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

seen elsewhere as a comment:

"We don’t have enough black female quarterbacks in the NFL. It’s time for change."

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Black females are 7% of the U.S. population. And it turns out that 10% of federal judges are women of color.

So how dumb is it to deny "even consideration" of over 90% of the potential candidates for the Supreme Court?

biden pretty much guarantees he is ignoring most of the top 10 % of outstanding potential candidates

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Mitch McConnell:

"the American people elected a Senate that is evenly split at 50-50. To the degree that President Biden received a mandate, it was to govern from the middle, steward our institutions, and unite America,"

“The President must not outsource this important decision to the radical left. The American people deserve a nominee with demonstrated reverence for the written text of our laws and our Constitution.”

He's not willing to consider women of color, only blacks need apply. Great Asian female judge, thanks for coming out, but we're closed. Hispanics? Nope too white adjacent. Pacific islander, not interested. Indian, not enough melanin.

IMHO, Justice Breyer made his own decision to retire, and planned to announce his intention at the habitual time, the end of the current session in October. The Administration did not want that to happen so close to the November elections so they "leaked" the decision to the Press now, going against Justice Breyer's rightful desires. I don't believe he was pressured into retiring, but the process has been usurped by the Administration and speeded up to allow for a replacement to be chosen and confirmed prior to the election.

Although I believe Justice Breyer made his decision without being pressured, I think he was fully aware of the probable results of the upcoming election and wished to be replaced by someone with similar views to himself--that was undoubtedly a strong factor in the timing.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by sdy:
Black females are 7% of the U.S. population.

Soooooooo, let's flip this on its head and consider this BS 'equality/diversity' game for a moment. There are nine justices on the high court, with Clarence Thomas already representing black America. Then there are three women justices on the court. Soooooooooo, the high court is currently 11% black and 33% female which go way beyond the demographic representations of blacks and women in the population. A president with even a modicum of intellect and common sense would see this as plenty diverse currently, and would select the 'best candidate for the role. And then there's Ole Joe the dementia patient making this appointment...

Excuse me, but females are approximately 50% of the population, last time I looked. Not that I think it should matter for SCOTUS Justices.

flashguy

Now from the world of sports..
ESPN's Stephen A. Smith laments Broncos' coaching hire: 'As a Black man, it is sickening'.

Smith said Nathaniel Hackett, who is White, had similar credentials, if not worse, than the Chiefs' Eric Bienemy.

LINK: https://www.foxnews.com/sports...roncos-coaching-hire

Stephen A Smith, what he thinks and says is not worth occupying even a second of thought in your head. The man says whatever he thinks at the moment will get him the most attention. The best way to deal with attention whore trolls with racist tendencies like Smith is to realize they are not worth acknowledging and certainly not worth giving the attention they seek.

I don't care about color, sex, or origin. I care about adherence to (not interpretion of) the constitution and their record. Most of us know how much we're missed when we pull our hand out of the bucket of water. Maybe SC justices care more about that.

former mouthpiece for the Clinton Crime Family Joe Lockhart took to, where else, Twitter to deposit this pearl-necklace of wisdom:

Ahead of the midterms, I look forward to watching every Republican Senator oppose the first black woman to the Supreme Court.

While sadly, if history tells us anything at all, the GOP of course will cower in fear of being called - gasp! - racists. That aside, I have three words for this momzer:

JANICE ROGERS BROWN

In 2003, then-President George W. Bush nominated Janice Rogers Brown, an associate justice on the California Supreme Court to serve as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She was the first black woman nominated for the federal bench.

But Rogers Brown had a problem; she was a libertarian-conservative and refused to play ball with civil rights organizations.

One of her major decisions was a dissent in the case of forcing cigarette manufacturers to put warning labels on packs and cartons. A truly libertarian decision. She also attacked the New Deal, which gave us Social Security and other programs as "the triumph of our socialist revolution." You can imagine the anger of her liberal colleagues over that one.

But Joe Biden, champion of civil rights and the [so-called quote-unquote "president"] who has gloried in naming the first minorities to several positions in his [junta], filibustered against her nomination and voted twice against her. When Biden had the chance to vote for a black woman, he declined.

And do not even get me started on Justice Clarence Thomas, who is arguably one of the most outstanding jurists and legal minds to sit on the SCOTUS in that past 50 years or longer. What they put him through (as well as Robert Bork and every GOP president's nominee since, regardless of how they turned out) was such an absolute abomination - the magnum opus of both rapist and murderer Teddy Kennedy and Joey Soft-Serve - it opened my heretofore indifferent eyes about politics and revealed exactly who and what the Democrat Party is.

"The Democrat Party is white everywhere you look but constantly hiding behind black people. It's political blackface."

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/397602.php

It only makes sense that Breyer would retire. In fact, RBG made a terrible mistake by not retiring. It's critical that the politicians in robes coordinate with the politicians who appoint them...can't let the 'team' down. No doubt these Judges do have ego and are untouchable...but, they are human beings and crave the continued respect and admiration of their cohorts and society. The timing of the announcement is probably just a result of Biden's desperate polling. Everything is politics.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:


It is absolutely certain that Supreme Court justices consider their replacement when choosing the timing of their retirement. Breyer didn't just randomly decide it was time to enjoy his sunset years. He wants to be replaced by someone with the same judicial philosophy and is smart enough to know that the best chance for that to happen is to retire when there is a Democrat president and Democrats in control of the Senate. He can see as well as anyone that there is a pretty good chance that the GOP will control the senate next year, and a pretty decent chance that there will be a Republican in the White House in 2025. That means probably waiting another 6 years to maybe possibly have the chance to retire under favorable conditions in terms of a liberal successor.

For an 83 year old thinking of retiring, there really was no other option but to do it this year.

That is almost certainly part of his calculation. But that doesn't mean anyone forced him to retire.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
It is absolutely certain that Supreme Court justices consider their replacement when choosing the timing of their retirement. Breyer didn't just randomly decide it was time to enjoy his sunset years. He wants to be replaced by someone with the same judicial philosophy and is smart enough to know that the best chance for that to happen is to retire when there is a Democrat president and Democrats in control of the Senate...

That is almost certainly part of his calculation. But that doesn't mean anyone forced him to retire.

Right. No one forced him.
But he is committed to his ideology, and he certainly would prefer to be replaced by another of similar ilk. That means this year.

Breyer's position may be a little more calculated than some think.

Headline in today's WSJ was that Breyer will retire in June or July at the end of the session - IF there's a replacement in place.

Does Breyer believe Biden can get through the nomination and Senate approval process in four or five months, or is that an oh-so-polite "fuck you" to those who insist that he step down but who never said the same thing to Ginsberg?