"... likely to be more moderate on SCOTUS than Judge Jackson, at least based on her record on the California Supreme Court, where she has sided with Republican appointees more often than her fellow Democratic appointees. Some observers also see Justice Kruger as 'intellectually stronger' or boasting more 'intellectual firepower' than Judge Jackson. [UPDATE (3:06 p.m.): For some important clarification of the preceding sentence, please see my Twitter thread.] The youth and moderation cut both ways. Yes, the Biden Administration favors young nominees. But on the other hand, Justice Kruger is young enough that she’ll be a viable SCOTUS pick for another five to ten years, so she could be 'saved' for a future vacancy (just as Justice Barrett was passed over for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s seat so she could be “saved” for Justice Ginsburg’s). The moderation makes Justice Kruger easier to confirm, which is useful in a closely divided Senate. But on the other hand, it has made some on the left somewhat cautious about or even opposed to her."
Writes David Lat at "Handicapping President Biden's Supreme Court Shortlist/Here are my odds on the leading contenders—and some interesting historical analysis" (Original Jurisdiction). Lat gives Jackson a 40% chance of getting the nomination and Kruger a 30% chance.
I prefer moderate Justices, so I hope it's Kruger. And I would add 2 things:
1. It would be most valuable to liberals to have a Justice who will influence swing voters from the conservative side. I'm remembering the argument Professor Tribe made in 2010, when Obama got his first nomination and it seemed as though he was going to pick Sonia Sotomayor: It would be better to pick Elena Kagan, because she'd have more "of a purchase on Tony Kennedy's mind." Kennedy was the swing voter of the time, a time when the liberals only needed to swing one vote to gain a majority. These days, a liberal justice will need to swing 2 votes. Shouldn't Biden bet on Kruger?
2. With Biden committed to nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court, who can believe that the next nomination (if there is one) will also go to a black woman? Once you start doing representation, doesn't filling one slot eliminate putting the same "kind" of person in the next slot — or any slot any time soon? That might be a reason not to adopt this idea of choosing people by race and gender in the first place, but Biden made that choice back in the primaries when he needed to flaunt a pledge so he could win the black vote. Going forward, it's hard to picture nominating 2 black women in a row. It was easier to choose Kagan after Sotomayor than it will be to pick Kruger after Jackson. It's not something I expect Democrats to say out loud, but I'm sure Biden's people know that. If Kruger is better, pick her now.
Posts
121 comments:
AA said...
"it's hard to picture nominating 2 black women in a row... If Kruger is better, pick her now."
Hard to argue with that analysis.
Having committed to nominating a black woman to the Supreme Court, who can believe that the next nomination (if there is one) will also go to a black woman?
I think the Progressives should be clear that this appointment means all the other black women judges have no shot at the Supreme Court.
No. Shot.
It doesn't matter how brilliant or hard-working you are, your quota has been filled and you can't achieve your goals. That's just how race based decisions work. And if you're going to advocate for them, you should be up-front about what it means.
"Once you start doing representation, doesn't filling one slot eliminate putting the same "kind" of person in the next slot — or any slot any time soon? "
Democrats seem to think that "America looks like" 50/50 black/white, so not a problem.
We've all heard of damning with faint praise. Now I'm getting worried that Kruger is in real danger of being damned with white praise. Ixnay on the Rugerkay!
Your two points are great analysis.
It's like turning a light on. So much more to 'see' than the drek being spoon fed to us in the media. I seldom think about the Judges real job of attempting to form coalitions to reach a majority. Much easier to do, the more both sides share in common.
There is zero chance that Biden will nominate a moderate justice.
Given the population of the US, blacks are fully "represented" on SCOTUS If we are now to make all staffing decisions based on gender and ethnicity it would seem to me that the nominee should be an Asian woman since the court is short at least one woman and is certainly short an Asian. Thinking that way one wonders why Biden promised a black woman rather than an Asian woman. Perhaps he is getting his advice from the Harvard admissions committee!
The idea that Biden will have a second SCOTUS pick seems somewhat farfetched. When and why?
One of the interesting things about Kruger is (like Obama), one of her parents was white. And (like Thomas) her spouse is white. So if you're a racialist trying to determine how black Kruger is, she fails, based on the odious "one drop" rule.
Of course, Obama fails too, so that won't get you very far.
10 to 1 somebody will ask Kruger how she "identifies." She has to say "black" or she won't get the job. If she says, "I'm white on Monday and black on Friday," she won't get the job, either.
I don't suppose suing the Biden administration for racial discrimination would work. But he's opened himself up for that allegation. He's absolutely engaging in racial discrimination. He's announced it.
Of course nobody could sue him, because the pool of victims (the rest of the universe) is way too big. Everybody who's not a black female is being discriminated against. Most of us don't go around assuming that we should be on the Supreme Court and it's that racist Biden that's keeping us from our appointment. That would be a ridiculous lawsuit.
But if Biden were to interview Kruger, and ask questions about her father and her husband, and in general make a racist ass of himself, that would be grounds for litigation. I don't know if the lawsuit would go anywhere. But this idea, "We're only going to allow black females to apply for this job," is illegal as shit. That actually might be an interesting line of questioning at the confirmation hearing.
"Do you think it was appropriate for President Biden to say that only black females will be considered for this job? And would it be legal for other employers to do that?"
Can we please pick someone who did NOT go to Harvard or Yale?
Oh, I guess not.
Kruger has risen to the top of the legal profession despite being Black, Female and...Jewish?
Or because of, how can you tell.
And watching David Lat crawfishing on twitter after saying that the light skinned Kruger is stronger intellectually than the dark skinned Jackson is worth a read.
Seriously, as far as I know they're both brilliant fair-minded jurists but if I was an African American I think I'd get a little tired of seeing half-qualifiers getting all the spoils.
The Supreme Court is going to hear a case about racial discrimination in Ivy League Schools, which IS happening...yet the Progressives are proving how RACIST they really are by nominating ONLY a black woman. Look at most of Bidens picks for everything. He just wanted to be able to check off all the boxes so they could be FIRST!! Yay...destroy the country, but we had the most diverse administration. It is sending us backwards....
Saving the best candidate for a potential later appointment is like benching your starting quarterback in the divisional playoffs so that he's available for the conference game: there's no guarantee that you're going to get that game.
Pick the candidate that is going to help you win today's battles, not some hypothetical battles down the road.
This post is about the selection of a particular black woman, so please don't go back to the topic, addressed in earlier posts, of Biden's campaign pledge and his intention to adhere to it. I will delete comments to protect the thread from dilution and distraction.
1/9 is 11%. The percent of Asian Americans is 3. Therefore 0 Asian Justices is the correct representational percent.
Big Mike said...
@Althouse, how about treating either one of them the way Senator Joe Biden treated Janice Rogers Brown?
I love the political strategy of having Biden pick an extremely qualified candidate in his choice of color and gender, then Republicans inventing a scandal out of thin air, rake her, her family and friends over some very public hot coals, then kicking her to the curb on some Senate procedural grounds.
You fucking assholes are owed a couple and its time to make amends…
I don't want an OJ juror. I'm okay with a Black woman in favor of affirmative action on the Supreme Court. That's how it goes. I would hope, however, that she advocates her position with sweet blandness and doesn't get all up in the grille of her fellow Justices.
"Some observers also see Justice Kruger as 'intellectually stronger' or boasting more 'intellectual firepower' than Judge Jackson."
Might there be a correlation with her voting occasionally with the Republican appointees?
"Saving the best candidate for a potential later appointment is like benching your starting quarterback in the divisional playoffs so that he's available for the conference game: there's no guarantee that you're going to get that game. Pick the candidate that is going to help you win today's battles, not some hypothetical battles down the road."
Yes, the only reason why it looks as though Obama did something else was that he had a superior commitment to appointing a Hispanic Justice. If he'd had 2 Hispanic options, he wouldn't have picked the weaker one.
Note that Kruger is also stronger because she is younger. She's 45 and Jackson is 51. That's another reason in favor of Kruger, not a reason to save her for later. Someone else even stronger (and younger) will emerge in the coming years, so there's no reason to save a backlog.
I prefer moderate Justices
I prefer justices who rule based on law and not politics. Or do I not understand the purpose of the SCOTUS?
I mentioned Tiffany Cunningham in one of the other comment threads, entirely because she's a black woman who graduated with a BS in Chemical Engineering from MIT. Someone later mentioned she's had a lot of experience with patent law. Other than that little bit, I don't know her at all. I do not know her judicial temperament, her writing style, or her opinions on any of the hot political topics of the last three decades.
And I wonder how much President Biden knows about Jackson, Kruger or any of the other women on his list. Does he have binders that he can consult? Other than "black" and "woman", what are his criteria? Does he care whether the justice will be able to persuade others on the court? Does he care about "moderate" or "radical"? Or is it just about pleasing his Democrat advisors and/or colleagues? I'm sure he's talking to Jim Clyburn. How much is he talking to Barack Obama? Or Chuck Shumer?
Someone else even stronger (and younger) will emerge in the coming years, so there's no reason to save a backlog.
One reason: You don't want to the pick going down in defeat in a toxic environment. Save it for when there's better chance of approval....
You fucking assholes are owed a couple and its time to make amends
I hate that kind of tit for tat. You are punishing a person for other people's sins. The justice deserves the respect THEY have earned. If they are qualified they get the nod. It's ok to make it clear that they are partisan, but it is now a partisan post, so until we come up with a way to DQ partisans we are stuck with it. Let the partisan bickering happen between the congresscritters.
Of those two, hopefully, the choice is Kruger.
As long as she didn’t rape anybody.
I prefer moderate Justices, so I hope it's Kruger. And I would add 2 things:
I find it amusing that you think this label will in any way apply to or affect the results of this appointment.
There will be zero deviation in voting from either one of these "justices."
We will be able to guess with 100% accuracy how either one of these "judges" will vote on any topic of significance.
It is a joke that you even play along with this.
She's 45 and Jackson is 51. That's another reason in favor of Kruger
Hooray for ageism! :)
I think the nominee will be J. Michelle Childs, listed at 10% odds in the article, even though she is older than the others, at 55. The reason I think this is that the most powerful person in the country, it seems, is Rep. James Clyburn. He co-opted the dem primary against Sanders and for Biden, with Obama’s assist, as long as Biden promised to fill an SC seat with a black female. Clyburn is now pushing for Childs, a jurist from South Carolina, Clyburn’s home state. Biden will not be making this pick, anyway, in reality, right? Let’s see what happens!
"1/9 is 11%. The percent of Asian Americans is 3. Therefore 0 Asian Justices is the correct representational percent."
As is 1 black justice.
Clarence Thomas took some conservative positions and enunciated them in a low key, reasonable way. He was fairly bland. I think he lowered racial wariness among conservatives and other groups as well. He catches a lot of flack from liberals, but their jibes reflect more poorly on them than on Thomas. I hope Kruger or whoever expresses her opinions in a quiet, indoor voice but with more conviction and somewhat louder than Blasey Ford.
then Republicans inventing a scandal out of thin air, rake her, her family and friends over some very public hot coals, then kicking her to the curb on some Senate procedural grounds.
You fucking assholes are owed a couple and its time to make amends…
Emotionally I agree, and the Left will never change unless the Right engages in tit for tat, unfortunately the Right gets punished for this type of behavior even though the Left doesn't. It would be a political mistake.
What's their Constitution?
Would it be inappropriate to ask the nominee if they have ever eaten at Slutty Vegan?
So Kruger wins the talent contest, but Jackson sweeps the swimsuit and evening gown competitions?
I was a little stunned to see Lat going out in a limb and suggesting that one of the Black female candidates might not be as intellectual as the other, and I see from the Twitter thread that he is indeed paying a price for doing so.
"1/9 is 11%. The percent of Asian Americans is 3. Therefore 0 Asian Justices is the correct representational percent."
If that's how it works, we already have the correct representational percent of blacks.
"where she has sided with Republican appointees more often than her fellow Democratic appointees. Some observers also see Justice Kruger as 'intellectually stronger'"
Don't they have editors to check for redundancies?
"unfortunately the Right gets punished for this type of behavior..."
Do they? I mean really, isn't this sort of self stiflement?
3. She's got kind of a sexy librarian thing going on there.
AA forever
Merit never
"1/9 is 11%. The percent of Asian Americans is 3. Therefore 0 Asian Justices is the correct representational percent. "
I think fairness should not be judged by instantaneous balance, but weighted balance. If there has never been an Asian male or Asian female, that matters. With zero Asian justices you can't do a weighted ratio, but zero Male or Female Asians in 250 years beats 2 Male and 0 Female African Americans in 200 years. This would gross up the weighted Asian population equivalent to 11.25%, so, it is the Asian's turn.
"Can we please pick someone who did NOT go to Harvard or Yale?"
How about someone not tainted with AA?
AA types by definition means they wouldn't be where they are unless others were brushed aside.
"I prefer moderate Justices . . . 1. It would be most valuable to liberals to have a Justice who will influence swing voters from the conservative side . . . 2. Once you start doing representation, doesn't filling one slot eliminate"
Just to illustrate how corrupt the whole business of American "law" is: not that "moderation" or "influencing" voters or "representation" have anything to do with, you know, the rule of law, balls and strikes, that sort of BS.
Of course, "moderation" is itself a malleable term: Tony K very moderately decided that 150 years after being adopted in an age that barely contemplated homosexuality, the 14th Amendment invalidated any state marriage laws that excluded SSM.
Once Breyer goes, is there any intellectual heft left on the left side of the Court? I mean, back when Presidents were picking on ability and not quotas, we got epic battles between Ginsburg and Scalia, for instance.
Who quotes Sotomeyer as a sage writer? Kagan is clearly the most intellectual of that side, and I don't know anything she has written that is profound or cited much. Breyer may be bland, but he can think.
Thomas is brilliant in his own way (he's also the only Justice I have ever met, since he is the only one who would deign to come to my law school--the rest were too "good" to come). As an aside, my law school will really rue the day Thomas goes--he regularly takes graduates as clerks, when none of the rest will. Maybe Alito? But I know Thomas does--he took one of my classmates.
As I said in another thread, I think that the WH leaked Breyers retirement plans because they didn't want to start this process in May when the primaries would be weeks away. They need time to convince the progressive wing to go along with a more moderate pick.
"She's got kind of a sexy librarian thing going on there."
Honestly, if I saw that picture blind, I would guess that she was Indian.
Ha, Sebastian... totally off topic to this post, but this is a fascinating question and I'd love to hear Althouse's take on it.
So we know that the 14th amendment, apparently, allows SSM and overrides states on that.
What about Polygamy? I suspect the answer from Ms. Althouse is that ultimately "whatever consenting adults want should be allowed." Plus, Muslims want it. Ok, it's likely inevitable at this point.
But here's the question: Both Utah and Oklahoma were admitted to the Union with, as part of their state admission's act, explicit guarantees that neither would ever allow polygamy to be legal in their state, no matter what (in fact, Utah has state constitutional prohibitions against polygamy that are explicitly not subject to amendment. It cannot be changed). If the Supreme Court rules that Polygamy is ok... then Utah and Oklahoma suddenly are in violation of their state's admission / enabling act. Would they lose statehood status? This was after the civil war, so they wouldn't be rebelling--they just no longer qualify under their enabling acts.
And wouldn't that be a compelling state interest against allowing legalized polygamy-- "If you allow this, our state ceases to exist." Seems, well, a reason that would survive any sort of strict scrutiny. I wouldn't think that if Utah and Oklahoma were suddenly dropped from the Union that today's Democrat congress would ever allow them to be a state again.
I'd love an analysis on that! Can a state be "downgraded" to a territory if they violate their state's enabling act?
Do they? I mean really, isn't this sort of self stiflement?
I cite our hostess as example #1. How do you think she'd react if the Right lied about Biden's pick the way the Left lied about Kavanaugh?
Hell, she'll be outraged even if the Right brings up something that is true, but unpleasant.
Of course, "moderation" is itself a malleable term: Tony K very moderately decided that 150 years after being adopted in an age that barely contemplated homosexuality, the 14th Amendment invalidated any state marriage laws that excluded SSM.
Oh they contemplated homosexuality back then, in fact they made it illegal.
Richard Epstein would have a dazzling resume. I don't know of any others, least of all some black lady unless she's on the $20 bill or something.
Is Harriet Miers black?
They won't go with the good one. They'll pick the most controversial to create a huge smokescreen so the base doesn't think to much about Pres. Drool Biden.
Do Manchin and Sinema figure into the analysis at all?
Republicans' only hope of defeating a nominee is to win over at least one of them. Is there any chance of that happening?
Racism, ageism and sexism are all at play here.
However, there is an -ism that may turn the tide: lookism. If Bob Boyd's photo is actually what Judge Kruger looks like, well that's who they should nominate. The sexy librarian thing works for me.
Is being married to a white dude a plus or a minus under the Biden regime?
The issue isn't whether these 2 are the best leftist black women available. They probably are. But they're only being compared to each other, not the full slate of potential candidates of all races, male or female. Among that population, they may be the top 2 candidates and they might not, but we don't know because the President made race and sex the decisive factors, rather weighing intellect and legal writing and experience and temperament. What are the odds that these 2 black women are the best possible candidates? Unlikely. By limiting himself along ugly and bigoted lines, the president is doing a disservice to the court and to our country by sending the wrong message: that race and sex matter more than anything else.
Who died and decided what the relevant racial/ethnic categories are? Johnson? Nixon? Now that gender categories are blooming or exploding, why are the Irish satisfied with just being "white," the Filipinos "Asian," or the Nigerians "Black"? If everyone has a gripe, maybe we can say we're all equal and move on.
The percent of Asian Americans is 3.
You’re off by a factor of two.
I think SCOTUS nominations should exclude graduates of Harvard and Yale for the next 20-50 years
Vance raise the question: What about Polygamy? Oooh. That's a good topic someday. Read his post if you missed it. For now, let's keep it off topic and enjoy it later.
I love the political strategy of having Biden pick an extremely qualified candidate in his choice of color and gender, then Republicans inventing a scandal out of thin air, rake her, her family and friends over some very public hot coals, then kicking her to the curb on some Senate procedural grounds.
You know this is a very basic rejection of Christ, right?
I can see getting mad at the people who did this with Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh. I'd say that's a righteous anger. What's not compatible is to take your anger at one person, and then unleash it on Kruger (or whoever), an innocent person who had nothing to do with what you are mad about.
Honestly, if I saw that picture blind
...you would not see anything.
"Once Breyer goes, is there any intellectual heft left on the left side of the Court?"
Roberts./sarc
Biden is not making a selection. He is controlled by his handlers.
His handlers are far left. I expect the nom to be as far left as possible.
Rep. James Clyburn. He co-opted the dem primary against Sanders and for Biden, with Obama’s assist, as long as Biden promised to fill an SC seat with a black female. Clyburn is now pushing for Childs, a jurist from South Carolina, Clyburn’s home state. Biden will not be making this pick, anyway, in reality, right? Let’s see what happens!
This sounds about right. We already know the appointment has nothing to do with merit.
I am perfectly fine with having a person of particular demographics on the supreme court. It's good if we get it all over with so that future judges can be picked with a little less deference to demographics. Next up will be homosexual Asian, Muslim, transgender, etc. Should have everything covered in about 30 years. The good thing for these people is that they get the distinction of being the first. The bad news is they have to live with the stigma of being an AA justice. BUT, once these trailblazers blaze the trail, the next Muslim homosexual, transsexual, albino, midget, furry will be selected for their political philosophy not their demographics, so that will make things much better.
Gahrie: Yes, of course. Correction accepted. But you know what I meant.
the next nomination (if there is one)
Well, we know there will be another nomination — we just don't know when. It wouldn't need to be in the Biden administration; a future Democratic president could still nominate Kruger within the next 10 years.
All other considerations aside, Biden would be crazy not to nominate the candidate who, among those being considered, is the most intellectually dazzling and personally appealing. Now that he has painted himself into this corner of committing to pick a black woman, he should try to make sure that the black woman he picks impresses the socks off of everyone at the hearings, so it doesn't look like his ill-advised pledge to make it black woman required an unacceptable lowering of standards. He has to make this a higher priority than what little might separate the candidates in terms of their ideology or a few years in age.
Although we have perhaps moved on from the discussion of Kamala Harris' being the pick, think of how godawful that would have looked. Everyone can see that Kamala is not even up to serving as VP. So it comes across as another clear example in the eyes of most normal people of where affirmative action requires a lowering of standards (which largely defeats the purpose of trying to present different groups as being completely equal). If he not only does this again for a SCOTUS pick, but also PICKS THE VERY SAME PERSON, now he makes it look like Kamala was the not only the best VP he could find among black women, but she's also the best SC justice he could find among black women. Kamala Harris! It's such an insult to black women for Biden to present her as the "best" he could come up with.
The commie-pinko lefties have a huge advantage over Republicans. Their appointees stay left when appointed. Some even veer further left. With few exceptions, R appointees become dishrags.
No matter who Senile Joe's handlers appoint, we can predict today how they will rule in every case.
Hey Joe... Flippin like a flag on the pole: Via AceOfSpades
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.
Did Harriet Miers vote for Joe Biden?
I don’t think James Clyburn (who is really running things for Joe) will pick anyone but a left wing Black woman. The further to the left, the better her chances of getting the nomination. Or maybe just the more Black, the better the chances. Mr. Clyburn was instrumental in getting Joe elected, since he got the Black women vote for Joe. So, he will get to pick the next Supreme.
Leondra Kruger is half White (Jewish) and is married to a White man. Two strikes against her. Ketanji Brown Jackson’s parents are both Black BUT her husband is White, so only one strike against her. That is if we are doing the picking based solely on race. Biden said a Black woman, not a Bi-racial woman. Not like Obama who is Bi-Racial.
Both women have outstanding credentials. However, Leondra seems to have a more “privileged” background. Leonora attended private school in CA. Ketanji went to public schools in Miami, but attended Ivy League schools like Leondra. If it’s between these two women, and their Blackness, then it has to go to the Black woman who is more Black…Ketanji. Unless there’s another supremely qualified judicial intellectual judge out there who has no White ties at all and is Left enough for Mr. Clyburn. Well, we shall see..
... more moderate. LOL LOL ROTFLMAO
That's what they said about Merrick Garland and I haven't seen any moderation
from him in his current position.
I thought all judges were black women. At least that's what I've learned from watching TV and movies. In fact, that's probably where Biden got the idea for his pledge.
I don't think these people understand the constitution or even believe in it
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/supreme-court-contender-leondra-kruger-versus-religious-liberty/
If Sotomayor had a "Dazzling intellect", what difference would it make? Would she set aside her liberal-left political views and tether her opinions to the Constitution/Law as written?
No.
A lefist Judge with a "dazzling intellect" and "deep knowledge of the Constitution" just uses it to cloth his POLITICALLY motivated rulings in fine words. The end result is the same.
Harriet Miers was the greatest legal mind in the USA per George Chimpy Bush. Sadly, no one else ageed. Except Hugh Hewitt.
I think Breezy is onto something. Clyburn's current influence is key. Appointing a southern female black judge (though born in Detroit) with an atypical academic background would appear good-populist. Childs has academic ties to Florida as well. she attended college in Hillsborough County, one of those bellwether election counties.
"Sexy librarian." Good guess, definitely a nerdgirl.
Speaking of which, nobody told me Hereticon was going on a few weeks ago.
So Kruger wins the talent contest, but Jackson sweeps the swimsuit and evening gown competitions?
I guess I got it backwards.
This is troubling:
In Judge Dredd Megazine vol. 3 no. 74 (2001), Kruger accidentally kills a woman during a routine inspection by breaking her neck with his daystick, which is witnessed by her only son, Daniel Falcone. To cover his tracks, he plants a gun in her hands and calls the incident in.
"Some observers also see Justice Kruger as 'intellectually stronger' or boasting more 'intellectual firepower' than Judge Jackson."
Yeah, she's almost as smart as a white woman.
When will we see a list of non-female, non-Black judges passed over for this Supreme Court seat, and a comparison of the nominee to those on that list?
Let's compare two fish, one a day old and the other two days old, and decide which to buy for dinner. But don't dare compare them to fresh fish, because reasons. Affirmative action stinks.
Justice is blind. Unless were picking SC nominees.
Dazzling!
(not bland)
Wow, I thought referring to Bush as Chimpy went out of fashion now that we have an ex president who even more closely resembles a chimp. Really shouldn't do that, rcocean.
For the charade, one is enough. In fact, many predict that after Obama, it will be at least a generation before there is another black president.
You Neville Chamberlin conservative political pacifists- 2004 wants it’s Republican strategy back. These current lefties want you dead or in prison if you don’t comply and they’re a only couple of moderate Democrat nominees away from backstopping it…
The electorate has sorted itself out the last 24 months. The only thing that will harm conservative politicians is if they continue to act compliant to the liberal agenda.
I get that most of you are in the final furlong. The rest of us are going to have to live with these people. I just know I don’t want them in charge…
that is why they stole the election at least in those six boroughs, kruger was just another hack as solicitor general,
Diversity, inequity, and exclusion. Emanations from the penumbra. #HateLovesAbortion
It's comical to apply the word "justices" to any of these people. Of the present SC "justices" only three seem even remotely blind in the right way: Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas. The rest all view through partisan lenses. Roberts thinks it's his job to save laws that are unconstitutional. ACB is just weak. Kavenaugh is worthless, a man ruined (if he had any real standard to be ruined from) by the smear campaign to derail him. And the three liberals of the court are, like all liberals, completely partisan. Sotomayer couldn't look at the number 8 without seeing asking her NPR friends if it was a real number first. Maybe Kagan is a tad better. I haven't studied her career but I do get that feeling.
The past five years have made me so cynical of all our institutions. I've been wondering, is it just my awakening or are we really on the end of era of institutional rot everywhere?
“Going forward, it's hard to picture nominating 2 black women in a row.”
There were a smattering of Catholics appointed to the Supreme Court until Antonin Scalia, then there was a deluge. Keep in mind that President Biden may be appointing four new justices if the Catholics decide to take away abortion rights. He may want to save the more moderate choice for one of those four slots.
no this has been the refining fire, and most have been found wanting, creatures like cuomo and whitmer have killed tens of thousands of people, and yet have not been made accountable, Fauci after enabling mass death, through indifference or enemy action, is still vertical ans seemingly untouchable, the media have been stalinist in their indifference,
Asians are 5.7% of the population now. Hispanics are up to 18%. So the perfect justice would be half Asian, half Hispanic (to add to Sotomayor) and gender neutral. There must be someone like that with a law degree in the U.S.
"One of the interesting things about Kruger is (like Obama), one of her parents was white. And (like Thomas) her spouse is white. So if you're a racialist trying to determine how black Kruger is, she fails, based on the odious "one drop" rule."
Daughters get 2 x's so they can be any blend of mom and dad. Boys get xy so they are at least half mom if not more. As my dad told me, if you want smart sons, marry a smart girl.
Kruger could be all Jewish and her mother was a doc too so she should be golden. Obama is half or more PhD white bread and up to half African elite. So who knows, probably fairly good.
I like Sailer's analysis of why it doesn't matter much:
An interesting question about a Supreme Court justice is how important is competence? It’s embarrassing for a lesser court judge to repeatedly get overturned by higher courts, but when you are on the highest court that can’t happen.
It's also embarrassing when they say stupid stuff in public, as in Sotomayor and O’Connor.
...But most of the time, Supreme Court decisions come down to whether Team Democrat is bigger or smaller than Team Republican, so it’s hard to see competence being all that crucial in a nominee.
In contrast, competence matters for sure in tens of millions of other jobs.
Daughters get 2 x's so they can be any blend of mom and dad. Boys get xy so they are at least half mom if not more. As my dad told me, if you want smart sons, marry a smart girl.
Kruger could be all Jewish and her mother was a doc too so she should be golden. Obama is half or more PhD white bread and up to half African elite. So who knows, probably fairly good.
1. I'm astounded by this pig farmer discussion of human genetics.
2. I apologize to pig farmers for comment #1.
3. When I buy a dog nobody is this stupid about breeding.
4. Mendel just threw up in his skeleton.
5. You have to be kidding.
6. You sound like Jimmy the Greek after his ninth scotch and soda.
7. You've managed to say positive things about Africans and Jews, and possibly white bread, while simultaneously insulting all of humanity.
8. Holy fuck
9. It's a joke, right?
Saint Croix said...
You know this is a very basic rejection of Christ, right?
I can see getting mad at the people who did this with Bork, Thomas, and Kavanaugh. I'd say that's a righteous anger. What's not compatible is to take your anger at one person, and then unleash it on Kruger (or whoever), an innocent person who had nothing to do with what you are mad about.
The justification for nominating a "black female" is that a more qualified white males won't get the nomination because of harms to other black females that he had nothing to do with.
If it's right to harm other innocent people in order to help her, it's equally right to harm her, no matter how innocent she may be, in order to get reparations for Bork, Kavanaugh, etc.
Either you vow to nominate the most qualified individual, without reference to skin color and / or sex, or else you've left the land where "innocence" matters
When was the last time a Democrat nominated a "moderate" justice? They all seem to vote the same way on any even slightly political issue. The only real difference between Kagan and Sotomayor is the former can form a coherent legal argument that was in "no way" reasoned backwards from the desired conclusion instead of even-handed consideration of the law and the Constitution and the latter is generally hysterical but we are supposed to pretend that she is a "wise Latina." The fact that Kagan may vote "conservative" on some obscure trucking regulation or whatever that no one cares about is no solace.
Only Republicans nominate "moderates." Sometimes we get serious Constitutional scholars, sometimes we get serious Constitutional scholars except when some particular hobby horse of theirs is up for discussion and then they will agree to anything to get what they want, and sometimes they are just left wing but apparently no one seemed to notice at the time. If Democrats got 9 straight justices, the court would vote 9-0 in favor of leftist goals. If Republicans got 9 straight justices, we would be talking about who the swing vote is.
Do you have anything non hysterical to say? Is it true that sperm carry only an x or a Y chromosome ? If so the fathers role is limited, right?
When you think about the cases which will be coming before the Court isn't it wrong to select someone who claims gender is an immutable fact? For example, for purposes of using a bathroom or being on a swim team or being assigned to a woman's prison some say that it would be wrong to say that an individual was not a woman if they said they am a woman. Yet I think we know that that athlete or that prisoner would not be eligible to be the first black woman on the Supreme Court if they was that same as they am to get on the swim team or into the women's prison. So how can the first black woman to get on the Supreme Court judge fairly between, let's say, the women and the woman on the UPenn swim team? Or any athletic issues of such nature? Bottom line: she wouldn't have got her position unless it was reserved for her. Can she then start saying that other women can't have positions reserved for them?
Brief pause ...
Then the digital air is filled with a strange cries ...
Then
Yikes. Yikes!! Oh, Ok guys, slow down. Yes, yes, I know, they's a Dem, they can and will say anything. Never mind.
"[Janice Rogers Brown] was the first black woman nominated for the federal bench."
No, she wasn't! Not even close.
"Rep. James Clyburn. He co-opted the dem primary against Sanders and for Biden, with Obama’s assist, as long as Biden promised to fill an SC seat with a black female. Clyburn is now pushing for Childs, a jurist from South Carolina, Clyburn’s home state. Biden will not be making this pick, anyway, in reality, right?"
Why would Clyburn have any influence now?
Derbyshire quotes a tweet from somebody, that all the candidates ought to be put in a McDonalds and it announced to that the fries aren't ready, and the last one standing is your nominee.
I guess there's a sentiment that black women aren't mostly met with high expectations. A sentiment probably picked up from black woman elite talking on the news. You don't hear from the smart ones.
Long ago the sentiment was that there's nothing sweeter than the kindness of old black ladies.
If it's right to harm other innocent people in order to help her, it's equally right to harm her, no matter how innocent she may be, in order to get reparations for Bork, Kavanaugh, etc.
It's not right to harm innocent people in order to help her. It's racist and wrong.
My point, which seems to have flown over your head, is that harming innocent people in a tit-for-tat fashion 1) does not help or "avenge" the wrong that was done to the innocents and 2) marks you as just as evil as the people who did the first wrong.
Sort of like shooting up a baseball field full of Democrats as "payback." Do you get it now?
Based on the two listed, I would tend toward Judge Jackson. Perception of intellectual superiority is often just perception. President Biden has said his son, Hunter, is the smartest person he knows after all.
I actually think that Clyburn's choice, Childs, will be the nominee. True Biden doesn't have to pay him back for his support but I think the consequences of not doing so will be too great.
I find it interesting that Biden didn't name his nominee in the press conference. His comments imply discussions still to be had. The pool of justices with the required criteria is small and he has had some time to be working on this. Why didn't he announce a pick?
He seems to be going between quick decisions (his inauguration day executive orders) and decisions inexplicably delayed. So what are the other considerations?
Some have said he wants the fight with Republicans to use against them in the midterms. I have already seen a number of pundits claiming Republicans will object to a black judge because they are ALL RACIST. Barring the unknowns, most of the options I have seen seem to be accomplished and intelligent women who are, on their own merits, not controversial. So how do you get the fight if that is your goal?
You nominate a black trans women now.
According to Wikipedia, Judge Amalya Kearse was the first Black woman appointed to the federal court of appeals. Judge Kearse went to Michigan Law long before the days of affirmative action, and was an editor of the Michigan Law Review back in the day when that meant something, and became a partner at Hughes, Hubbard and Reed before her appointment to the Second Circuit. She was also a world-class bridge player.
My point, which seems to have flown over your head, is that harming innocent people in a tit-for-tat fashion 1) does not help or "avenge" the wrong that was done to the innocents and 2) marks you as just as evil as the people who did the first wrong.
If you want to make a your point don't be critical of others making a different point in order to make yours. The issue I and others are addressing seems to have flown over your head.
...and fuck you with the name calling...
Biden promised during his campaign to nominate a Black woman to the Court. This was a promise he made to Clyburn in order to help with the Black vote. Now, he has to pay the piper. So, we have controversy and no matter which Black woman he nominates, she will look like payback to Clyburn. It would have been better if Biden never made this promise and then after winning the election, and when Breyer retired, he then nominated a Black woman. But, maybe then he would not have won the election? (But, in my mind he really didn’t win anyway.)
Ann Althouse said...
"[Janice Rogers Brown] was the first black woman nominated for the federal bench."
No, she wasn't! Not even close.
But I believe she was the first black woman nominee to be filibustered
That it was done by Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer, and many other Democrats still in the Senate
And it was done because she was a black woman with "incorrect" beliefs
So, it's entirely appropriate to ask Biden's nominee what she thinks about the Democrat's filibuster. And if she has any words she'd like to say to Senator Feinstein, who IIRC is on the Senate Judiciary committee, and took part in the filibuster
Ann Althouse said...
"Rep. James Clyburn. He co-opted the dem primary against Sanders and for Biden, with Obama’s assist, as long as Biden promised to fill an SC seat with a black female. Clyburn is now pushing for Childs, a jurist from South Carolina, Clyburn’s home state. Biden will not be making this pick, anyway, in reality, right?"
Why would Clyburn have any influence now?
Because Clyburn still has his influence in South Carolina, and he can use it to harm those who lie to him
Saint Croix said...
It's not right to harm innocent people in order to help her. It's racist and wrong.
Great, so what are you going to do about it?
My point, which seems to have flown over your head, is that harming innocent people
You've just established that she's not innocent, because she's the willing beneficiary of racism and sexism
If it's wrong for her to get nominated simply because she has the politically preferred sex color and genitals, then it's equally wrong for her to accept the nomination.
See Saturday Night Fever, when John Travolta's character shows the correct response to being given something unearned. because of racism.
As for the rest, look up the Law of War, and Reprisals
The proper response to someone shooting up a baseball field full of people whose politics he doesn't like is to arrest, try, convict, and punish the shooter
But if that's not done, because, for example, the authorities are on the side of the shooter, then the correct response is to start shootign up gatherings of the other side, and to keep on doing so until the other side accepts that the law applies to them, too, and that therefore they can't let people they like violate the law
The proper response to someone shooting up a baseball field full of people whose politics he doesn't like is to arrest, try, convict, and punish the shooter
But if that's not done, because, for example, the authorities are on the side of the shooter, then the correct response is to start shooting up gatherings of the other side
Do you mind if I drag you up from mass murderer to vigilante? I would prefer that you not murder anybody. You know, that Christian stuff.
But if you are determined to murder people for justice, don't you think it's a good idea to murder the shooter and not random innocent people who haven't killed anybody?
You might be able to justify a fake scandal about Christine Blasey Ford, or Dianne Feinstein. I think a lot of people would applaud that.
But there is no moral justification whatsoever for doing evil shit to Kruger, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the attack on Kavanaugh (or Thomas, or Bork). Surely you can see that?
Lat may want to adjust his odds after Graham went on Sunday Show
and talked up Childs.
Saint Croix said...
Do you mind if I drag you up from mass murderer to vigilante? I would prefer that you not murder anybody. You know, that Christian stuff.
But if you are determined to murder people for justice, don't you think it's a good idea to murder the shooter and not random innocent people who haven't killed anybody?
If they're supporting authorities who don't punish murderers, then they themselves are accessories to the murders.
Which means they're not innocent people.
In this case, Joe Biden is the chief racist and sexist, because he's the one making the racist and sexist choice to only nominate a a "black female".
The Senators on the Senate Judiciary committee can't do anything to him.
In front of them will be person X, a beneficiary of racism and sexism.
IOW, in front of them will be a knowing and willing beneficiary of evil.
Which is to say, an accessory after the fact.
In what way is she "innocent"?
In what way is she "innocent"?
If you don't understand innocence, brother, I can't explain it to you.
Hope you're not an attorney.
Saint Croix said...
In what way is she "innocent"?
If you don't understand innocence, brother, I can't explain it to you.
If you think that someone who knowingly and willingly supports evil behavior is in fact "innocent", I'm not the one who doesn't understand what the word means
If you think that someone who knowingly and willingly supports evil behavior is in fact "innocent", I'm not the one who doesn't understand what the word means
How the hell do you know that Kruger "knowingly and willingly supports evil behavior"? On what possible basis are you saying this? Show me this evil.
I think you are discriminating against her, because of the color of her skin.
Yes yes yes, Biden invites this discrimination. But why the fuck are you following Biden?
You don't know her! So don't tell me that it's fine to assassinate her character.
Are we the baddies?
Saint Croix said...
How the hell do you know that Kruger "knowingly and willingly supports evil behavior"? On what possible basis are you saying this? Show me this evil.
You need to stop arguing with straw men, and engage the people here.
I have not named anyone to go after. I have stated the person to go after is any "black female" who accepts Joe Biden's "I'm only going to nominate a black female" nomination.
Because any "black female" who accepts that nomination is knowingly and willingly supporting evil behavior: racism and sexism
I think you are discriminating against her, because of the color of her skin.
Yes yes yes, Biden invites this discrimination. But why the fuck are you following Biden?
You don't know her! So don't tell me that it's fine to assassinate her character.
I will know her actions. A person of good character would not participate in a racist and sexist farce. By being Joe's nominee, she will be doing that participation
Which part of actions and consequences do you not understand?
I would have liked for President Biden to have gone for real diversity, say a Black female from the University of San Diego de Acala Law School.
Regards — Cliff
Professor Ann Althouse said...
1/9 is 11%. The percent of Asian Americans is 3. Therefore 0 Asian Justices is the correct representational percent.
I guffawed.
Does that mean no Asian-Americans?
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment