FIFY

quote:

Originally posted by mbinky:
I believe VA elected a pretty impressive Lt Governor who happens to be a black woman.

Perhaps Biden should nominate her?

OMG I was going to post that I couldn't decide if I wanted Winsome Sears (Virginia Lt. Governor and Republican) to be President or a Supreme Court Justice. I looked her up on Wikipedia and discovered that she was born in Jamaica.

She is not an attorney, so I guess I'll have to settle for her being a U.S. Senator. I'll gladly have her replace either of the two Democratic dimwits we have now.

^^^There is NO requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be an attorney...

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^There is NO requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be an attorney...

Getting a Supreme though confirmation that has no legal training or experience as a judge would be an uphill battle. It could happen, but it's not likely without a supermajority in the Senate.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:

Getting a Supreme though confirmation that has no legal training or experience as a judge would be an uphill battle.

As if that currently matters or will factor in at all who is chosen.

On another note, we can always count on the squishyist of squishy Republicans to support whoever Biden throws out there. I give you Lindsey "I voted for Kagan and Sotomayor!" Graham, an intolerable squish, particularly in these matters.

*********

'Awesome person': Lindsey Graham praises one of Biden's Supreme Court candidates

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., on Sunday heaped praise on U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs, who is speculated to be one of President Biden's leading contenders for the Supreme Court.

"I can't think of a better person for President Biden to consider for the Supreme Court than Michelle Childs," Graham said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "She has wide support in our state. She is considered to be a fair-minded, highly gifted jurist. She's one of the decent people I've ever met."

Graham, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stopped just short of promising to vote for Childs if she becomes Biden's nominee, but the praise by the on-again, off-again Trump ally is sure to draw notice as the White House navigates the fraught politics of Supreme Court nominations.

Any Republican votes for Biden's pick would help create a bipartisan win ahead of the midterms, and it would relieve the pressure on Democrats of having to secure every one of their votes in the 50-50 chamber.

Childs, who hails from Graham's South Carolina, is one of several potential candidates expected to be on Biden's shortlist to replace Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who announced his resignation last week.

During the 2020 campaign, Biden made the historic promise to name a Black woman to the Supreme Court, and the White House quickly reaffirmed the vow after the news of Breyer's resignation. That quickly drew the spotlight to some of the leading Black female jurists in the country.

Along with Childs, the early discussions have reportedly focused on California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger and U.S. Circuit Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. Other names in the mix include U.S. District Court Judge Wilhelmina Wright and New York University law professor Melissa Murray.

Childs is also notable for her support from Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., the architect of Biden's pledge to name a Black woman to the court. Clyburn's 2020 endorsement is widely credited with helping turn around Biden’s primary campaign after bruising losses in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Republican criticism of Biden's reported shortlist of candidates has been focused on the president's considering only Black women for the job. Centrist Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, another key vote for Biden, on Sunday called his overt statements about the vacancy "clumsy at best."

https://news.yahoo.com/lindsey...court-171545186.html

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Getting a Supreme though confirmation that has no legal training or experience as a judge would be an uphill battle. It could happen, but it's not likely without a supermajority in the Senate.

That’s practically what happened with Elena Kagan. She taught law school but was never a judge.

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^There is NO requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be an attorney...

Getting a Supreme though confirmation that has no legal training or experience as a judge would be an uphill battle. It could happen, but it's not likely without a supermajority in the Senate.

That doesn't mean the wouldn't consider/try it...You know, for 'equity'!

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:
^^^There is NO requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be an attorney...

Getting a Supreme though confirmation that has no legal training or experience as a judge would be an uphill battle. It could happen, but it's not likely without a supermajority in the Senate.

One could probably say that about the upcoming nominee given she will likely be woefully unqualified given she'll have arrived by virtue of skin tone and gender alone.

quote:

Originally posted by DanH:

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
Getting a Supreme though confirmation that has no legal training or experience as a judge would be an uphill battle. It could happen, but it's not likely without a supermajority in the Senate.

That’s practically what happened with Elena Kagan. She taught law school but was never a judge.

And factor in that she's also a buffoon. No way that nitwit should have ever made it onto the court.

And the post above with Lindsay Graham's comments, he's an attention whore that will never miss an opportunity to jump in front of a microphone or camera. 'Whoever' runs against this POS next, Dem in the general or Repub in the primary, will receive a donation from me. Lindsay is one of the first names on the list of Repub's that need to be booted out of Washington with a warning never to come back.

Being a trial court judge has almost no bearing on being a justice on the Supreme Court. Being a court of appeals judge is a lot more like being a justice on the Supreme Court, but is still very different.

Having never sat on a trial bench wouldn't bother me at all when it came to a SCOTUS nominee. The jobs are very, very different.

There have been other modern justices who weren't ever judges. Byron White was in private practice, and then was an AUSA. While a Kennedy appointee, he held a lot of views which most of us would approve of. He criticised Roe v Wade as "an exercise in raw judicial power." Whether or not you agree with everything he wrote, most would agree that never having been a judge did not seem to be a handicap to him. Abe Fortas was never a judge, and left after a scandal involving a "retainer" payment made to him - maybe someone with experience would have known better, but it was probably a lapse of Fortas' - he should have known better anyway. Arthur Goldberg was not a judge, but only served three years when Johnson talked him into retiring to take the UN Ambassador job. He was a lefty, but no one complained he wasn't qualified. Earl Warren was a justice none of us would like, but he wasn't a judge before the Supreme Court. Even though we'll generally dislike his tenure, he did know how to get things done at the Court.

The Supremes see cases that exist in the legal stratosphere. This is not true of even the appeals courts. While those high-level cases cases make their way through the entire court system, most of the cases seen by the Courts of Appeals are relatively straightforward decisions about the application of existing law, and not the sort of things that the Supremes hear in almost every case they take on. The Supreme Court is sui generis - something that is in a category of its own.

That said, it would probably still be hard to nominate someone who wasn't a judge, given that has become the career path, and because it gives the nominator some road map as the the nominee's way of thinking. No appointing president wants a surprise.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jhe888,

quote:

No appointing president wants a surprise.

Yet there have been several. Justice Souter and Chief Justice Roberts being recent examples.

I suspect that President Biden will attempt to nominate someone who is at least minimally qualified for the post. If he follows through with nominating a Black female, though, she will be tainted forever with the suspicion that she was only chosen for those characteristics and her service will be diminished. No one should have to face that level of scorn.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

I suspect that President Biden will attempt to nominate someone who is at least minimally qualified for the post. If he follows through with nominating a Black female, though, she will be tainted forever with the suspicion that she was only chosen for those characteristics and her service will be diminished. No one should have to face that level of scorn.

flashguy

Agreed. A nominee chosen under those conditions is forever marked as a token, no matter how accomplished they may be. It would take a lot to overcome that.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

I suspect that President Biden will attempt to nominate someone who is at least minimally qualified for the post. If he follows through with nominating a Black female, though, she will be tainted forever with the suspicion that she was only chosen for those characteristics and her service will be diminished. No one should have to face that level of scorn.

flashguy

Agreed. A nominee chosen under those conditions is forever marked as a token, no matter how accomplished they may be. It would take a lot to overcome that.

Sami Sosa/Mark McGwire of black robes.

Kagan was solicitor general for a little while. She's still a goof though. Sotomayor really showed her idiocy in the OSHA vaccine case. BUT, the left always gets reliable ideologues that vote hard left every single time. The right usually gets right-center justices that lean right but can go either way.

Clearly, he was forced out. Clearly, the Dems know they are gonna get beat like a baby seal in November.

quote:

Originally posted by downtownv:
Clearly, he was forced out. Clearly, the Dems know they are gonna get beat like a baby seal in November.

By who and by what means? Be specific. Cite actual evidence.

quote:

Sami Sosa/Mark McGwire of black robes.

Huh... tainted forever with the suspicion?!?

I'm holding out for either a left-handed pacific islander or a transsexual native american nominee.

REPORTER: "How many black women do you have on staff and how are they informing your decision to move forward with the SCOTUS nomination."

Mitch MCCONNELL: "Actually, I haven't checked. We don't have a racial quota in my office..."

Ketanji Brown Jackson Refuses to Define Word ‘Woman’

https://www.theepochtimes.com/...0jBXmQnPKJTfCfA8PIkr

President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nominee on March 22 refused to define what a woman is or say whether she agreed that punishments for possessing or distributing child pornography should be strengthened.

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked during day 2 of her confirmation hearings whether she could provide a definition of the word “woman.”

“No, I can’t,” Jackson said.

“I’m not a biologist,” she added.

Jackson sits on the board of Georgetown Day School, where students as young as 5 are taught they can choose to be a different gender, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said.

She then asked Jackson if she agreed with the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said in a decision that “physical differences between men and women are enduring.” Jackson said she could not, because she was not familiar with the case.

After Jackson refused to provide a definition of what a woman is, Blackburn said, “The meaning of the word woman is so unclear and controversial that you cannot give me a definition?”

“In my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes. If there is a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law, and I decide,” the judge said.

“The fact that you cannot give me a straight answer about something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive education that we are hearing about,” Blackburn said, pointing out that Lia Thomas, a biological male, was permitted to race against women in the national college championships earlier this month, drawing widespread criticism.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Jackson also declined to oppose expanding the size of the Supreme Court. Both Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer, who Jackson will replace if she is confirmed by the Senate, have spoken out against the proposal, which is primarily favored by Democrats.

“I have opinions about a lot of things. I don’t have an opinion that I think is appropriate to share,” Jackson told Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). “I worked very hard to set aside my opinions when I’m thinking about cases, which is the work of a judge. So, this particular issue is one that is very contentious, as you say, one that’s in the province of Congress, and one that I think it’s not appropriate for me to comment on.”

Jackson used similar reasoning to decline to say if she supports imposing harsher punishments for child pornography-related crimes. While a judge, Jackson has given defendants in such cases a sentence on average 47 percent lower than what prosecutors recommended, according to an analysis from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

After the judge defended the disparity, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) inquired whether the United States should strengthen or weaken punishments for child pornographers.

“Senator, that is not a simple question, and the reason is because what this country does in terms of penalties is in Congress’s province,” Jackson said. “You all decide. You all decide what the penalties are, you decide what the factors are that judges use to sentence. If you determine that any set of penalties is insufficient, then it is in your purview to make that determination.”

“I have to say, judge, I think whether or not we should strengthen or weaken sentences for child pornographers is a pretty simple question, but I’ll move on,” Cotton said.