SCOTUS Vacancy

Quote: rxwine

Republicans are trying to target the left for purposely picking blacks for positions and callng it racist. But you probably never hear them saying some of the women they choose to nominate or choose as running mates are also not always based on the most qualified person, but on picking by gender to get votes. Gender discrimination isn't allowed either in the US.

See, the thing is they are not saying they will pick a woman before even starting the process. That is just who they pick.

Biden is saying, "Since skin color is the most important thing I will pick a black woman."

IOW, Biden is ruling out over 95% of possible picks based on skin color and gender! Then Democrats have the stones to say "SKIN COLOR SHOULD NOT MATTER!"

Quote: AZDuffman

See, the thing is they are not saying they will pick a woman before even starting the process. That is just who they pick.

Biden is saying, "Since skin color is the most important thing I will pick a black woman."

IOW, Biden is ruling out over 95% of possible picks based on skin color and gender! Then Democrats have the stones to say "SKIN COLOR SHOULD NOT MATTER!"

But then they make a strategic pick anyway that's not necessarily based on best qualified but who will get them the most votes. Both parties do that.

You can pretend if they don't say something then they didn't do it, I suppose. Doesn't change the fact of what they do.

Quote: ams288

lol

Systemic reverse racism isn’t a thing.

There has never been a black woman on the Supreme Court. Saying it is “racist” to want to right that wrong is incredibly stupid.

Saying that restricting your choice of candidates because of skin colour is not racist is incredibly stupid.

Quote: kenarman

Saying that restricting your choice of candidates because of skin colour is not racist is incredibly stupid.

Some of the right doesn't think affirmative action was ever a correct action. But they're wrong.

Quote:

(in the context of the allocation of resources or employment) the practice or policy of favoring individuals belonging to groups known to have been discriminated against previously.

Quote: rxwine

Some of the right doesn't think affirmative action was ever a correct action. But they're wrong.

11% of the judges are currently black pretty much bang on for representation. You can make a case women are under represented but if you start bringing both gender and race in each judge for scotus you will need a court of 50 people. You will need to have black, native American, Asian, S. Asian, Hispanic etc. You will also have to have each them in the 10 or so genders that the left now recognize.

Other than saying how great a lawyer VP Harris is, the President did a good job in his speech regarding the retirement of Justice Breyer.

I would have left out the color and gender of who he is going to nominate; we'll all know that when he makes the nomination. That is when it really counts anyway. I don't see having said it before as anything but using it to get votes and there are no votes as stake today. The campaign promise he made is fulfilled with the action, not the talk before it happens.

I don't think it matters too much, though.

He says that there will be a nominee by the end of February.

Quote: rxwine

Some of the right doesn't think affirmative action was ever a correct action. But they're wrong.

Affirmative Action is nothing but state sanctioned discrimination. It should never have been started. Does nothing but make people wonder if a minority was just picked on skin color.

Hopefully SCOUTS says the "expiration date" given by O'Connor in the early 2000s is good and colleges cannot use skin color for admissions anymore.

Quote: AZDuffman

Affirmative Action is nothing but state sanctioned discrimination. It should never have been started. Does nothing but make people wonder if a minority was just picked on skin color.

Hopefully SCOUTS says the "expiration date" given by O'Connor in the early 2000s is good and colleges cannot use skin color for admissions anymore.

Much like I wouldn’t listen to dining advice from Jeffrey Dahmer, I think I’ll skip listening to any thoughts Duffman has on affirmative action.

Quote: Mission146

"Stupid Democrats. LULZ."

You got this part correct.
I mean just look at the Leftie posts on this Forum.
Or look at The House Plant they nominated for President.
I give you Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer, two of the brightest people you'll ever meet. LMAO
Or Mazie Hirono who just suggested that the next SCOTUS Nominee should not only consider the law as written,
But how their decision might impact the lives of those affected by the decision.
Ahh, nice thought, but not what a Justice is supposed to do.
Read the law and interpret what the words mean as related to the facts presented in the case before them.
You want to change how a written law impacts people's lives, get that change in law through the legislature.
The Dems can't do that when it comes to their Socialist Agenda, so they rely on Leftist Judges to do it for them.
But you don't really care per your post, so whatever.

We'll see who The House Plant nominates, that will determine what political maneuvering Cocaine Mitch employs.
Evidently any black woman that can fog a mirror will meet the pre-determined quota.
Based on The House Plant's current mental state, the fogging the mirror bar seems appropriate.
"What a stupid Son of a Bitch", here's looking at you Dementia Joe!
Pretty ironic that this year's SCOTUS is determining whether affirmative action is Constitutional.
It of course is not Constitutional. You cannot favor one race over another.
Harvard is about to figure that out & the Asian population will win their day in court.

But if we are going for "equal representation" based on the make up of the country,
America is about 14% black I believe. SCOTUS Justices total of 9 * 14% = 1.25 Black Justices is "equal representation".
Correct me if I am wrong, but Clarence Thomas appears to be black.
And "one" is a lot closer to 1.25 than "two", so we aren't lacking the "black perspective" on the bench.

America is about 50/50 on males and females & we only have 3 women on the bench.
The next Nominee should be a woman if we are going for "equitable representation".

Probably should be a Hispanic woman if you want the bench to reflect the US Population
Hispanics are 20% of the population, 20% + 9 Justices = 1.8+ (Sotomayor sort of counts as "hispanic")
Add another Hispanic Justice and you are closer to 1.8 than you are with just one Hispanic on the bench.

But to be honest, I don't care what race or gender the Nominee is as long as they follow the law as written in the Constitution.
That is the only pre-determined criteria that should be on the minds of POTUS's making Nominations.
And the way Merrick Garland has been shown to be a political hack in the Biden Administration,
Thank God Cocaine Mitch threw his nomination into the ditch. What a POS Garland is!

Been off making money, but I guess I got suspended while I was gone. Like I care, LULZ.
But it meant a lot to Ed, so good job OD!
Got to keep all the quality, I mean quantity, posters happy because the analytics here have been slipping recently.
Kinda like Good Ole Joe's poll numbers , wow 538 now has him at -12.1 amongst registered/likely voters.
And to think The House Plant was +18.4 just one year ago, a 30%+ swing in approval in 12 months.
Ed & AMS keep telling us you're doing a great job. Hilarious!

Out for a while again, 2022 is looking to be a record revenue year and it is keeping me busy.
I'll leave this Island of Misfit Toys to do whatever it is they do here every single day. What a waste.

Quote: JCW09

You got this part correct.
I mean just look at the Leftie posts on this Forum.
Or look at The House Plant they nominated for President.
I give you Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer, two of the brightest people you'll ever meet. LMAO
Or Mazie Hirono who just suggested that the next SCOTUS Nominee should not only consider the law as written,
But how their decision might impact the lives of those affected by the decision.
Ahh, nice thought, but not what a Justice is supposed to do.
Read the law and interpret what the words mean as related to the facts presented in the case before them.
You want to change how a written law impacts people's lives, get that change in law through the legislature.
The Dems can't do that when it comes to their Socialist Agenda, so they rely on Leftist Judges to do it for them.
But you don't really care per your post, so whatever.

We'll see who The House Plant nominates, that will determine what political maneuvering Cocaine Mitch employs.
Evidently any black woman that can fog a mirror will meet the pre-determined quota.
Based on The House Plant's current mental state, the fogging the mirror bar seems appropriate.
"What a stupid Son of a Bitch", here's looking at you Dementia Joe!
Pretty ironic that this year's SCOTUS is determining whether affirmative action is Constitutional.
It of course is not Constitutional. You cannot favor one race over another.
Harvard is about to figure that out & the Asian population will win their day in court.

But if we are going for "equal representation" based on the make up of the country,
America is about 14% black I believe. SCOTUS Justices total of 9 * 14% = 1.25 Black Justices is "equal representation".
Correct me if I am wrong, but Clarence Thomas appears to be black.
And "one" is a lot closer to 1.25 than "two", so we aren't lacking the "black perspective" on the bench.

America is about 50/50 on males and females & we only have 3 women on the bench.
The next Nominee should be a woman if we are going for "equitable representation".

Probably should be a Hispanic woman if you want the bench to reflect the US Population
Hispanics are 20% of the population, 20% + 9 Justices = 1.8+ (Sotomayor sort of counts as "hispanic")
Add another Hispanic Justice and you are closer to 1.8 than you are with just one Hispanic on the bench.

But to be honest, I don't care what race or gender the Nominee is as long as they follow the law as written in the Constitution.
That is the only pre-determined criteria that should be on the minds of POTUS's making Nominations.
And the way Merrick Garland has been shown to be a political hack in the Biden Administration,
Thank God Cocaine Mitch threw his nomination into the ditch. What a POS Garland is!

Been off making money, but I guess I got suspended while I was gone. Like I care, LULZ.
But it meant a lot to Ed, so good job OD!
Got to keep all the quality, I mean quantity, posters happy because the analytics here have been slipping recently.
Kinda like Good Ole Joe's poll numbers , wow 538 now has him at -12.1 amongst registered/likely voters.
And to think The House Plant was +18.4 just one year ago, a 30%+ swing in approval in 12 months.
Ed & AMS keep telling us you're doing a great job. Hilarious!

Out for a while again, 2022 is looking to be a record revenue year and it is keeping me busy.
I'll leave this Island of Misfit Toys to do whatever it is they do here every single day. What a waste.

Thoughts and prayers to any member who actually reads this entire post.