Said President Biden, quoted in "Biden talks Supreme Court timing with Democratic senators/The president huddled with Judiciary Committee members as a nomination fight looms" (WaPo).
Top-rated comment: "Why is it going to take over a month to make a choice? Six of the senate votes on the Democrat side are octogenarians - we're one heartbeat away from another stolen seat."
I read the WaPo article because it was linked by David Lat in an update to his "President Biden's Supreme Court Nominee Will Be..../Here are updated odds that reflect the current state of play":
After this post was published, President Biden made some comments about his SCOTUS nominee selection process. He’s less far along than some of us expected, still in the process of reviewing dossiers on the candidates, with interviews to take place next week. He said that he and his team have “done the deep dive” on about four possible nominees so far. President Biden told Lester Holt of NBC News that (1) he’s “not looking to make an ideological choice here,” and (2) the names on his shortlist “come from the best universities.” Might these comments spell trouble for Judge Jackson and Judge Childs, respectively?
ADDED: That quote from Biden — I realize I haven't even considered taking it seriously. When I stop to think what is Biden doing taking a month, when long ago he narrowed it down to a black woman, and the possibilities are very well known and well vetted, what occurs to me is that the Democratic Party wants the confirmation process to put it in the most favorable light possible. That's a bit complex.
पोस्ट्स
५३ टिप्पण्या:
It’s the same gibberish we always get. Mainstream interpretation my ass…
…and wager against Harvard-Yale at your own peril..
Given the senility and incompetence of the administration and the general speed of government it’s rather ignorant to be surprised by a slow pace.
It’s not like a Hawaiian judge can declare the winner…is it?
So far no candidate has any characteristics except being a black woman. If they'd written anything cogent it would have been heard about.
"I think we’ll get a vote from Republican side for the following reason: The CIA has data on American Citizens. Like, Senators and such."
FIFY
we're one heartbeat away from another stolen seat."
So.. If a democrat has a stroke, or dies of old age... "another stolen seat" ?
Serious Question what would constitute a seat 'stolen' from the republicans?
murder? Anything? Anything at All?
If a state voted for a republican senator, and That senator took bribes and switched partied (I'm talking to YOU, Jim Jeffords) ... Would THAT constitute a 'stolen seat'?
I didn't think so
It's going to "take over a month" because the Biden Administration is deeply incompetent. Seriously, these are the people who wasted massive amounts of time and effort trying to push through a spending wishlist during a national emergency.
Imagine if Biden had instead pushed in August (when BBB was clearly stalled, but COVID-19 rapid antigen tests were €0.75/each in Germany but $15/each in the US) to pass a simple law saying "Any COVID-19 rapid antigen test that's been on the EU Health Security Committee's authorized list for three months without being withdrawn is given emergency authorization for sale in the United States".
That would have been a layup-easy victory that would be an obvious "Biden cares and is doing something" sitting on the shelf every time Americans went to a grocery or drug store (whatever its actual value in fighting COVID-19), and the Biden Administration just couldn't figure it out.
Oh my! Now we're back to "stolen" talk. I'm shocked! - Not
This is the only positive thing they have to talk about.
They need to string this out until just before the midterms.
The longer this takes, the “most qualified” the resulting black woman will appear.
Mainstream. You know, like AOC/Pelosi mainstream...
TRISTRAM said...
"I think we’ll get a vote from Republican side for the following reason: The CIA has data on American Citizens. Like, Senators and such."
FIFY
2/11/22, 6:06 AM
THIS^^^^
"Why is it going to take over a month to make a choice? Six of the senate votes on the Democrat side are octogenarians - we're one heartbeat away from another stolen seat."
The Left is okay with the Left talking about stolen judges, but outraged with the Right over the Right talking about stolen elections? Sometimes it's so damn hard to keep up with the Left's nuanced rules!
"That quote from Biden — I realize I haven't even considered taking it seriously."
I don't think anyone with a sound-mind takes it seriously, though I assure you, lots of people will pretend it's totally true.
One Dem Senator had a stroke. And he is a young guy. One or two Dems might not be available to vote.
I thought the problem was one of the Democratic Senators had a stroke and in a confirmation vote, the Vice President's vote does not count. So the Democrats only have 49 votes.
All they had to do to prevent that "stolen seat" was win an election. It seems to me that that seat was put up for a vote of the American people, and it's the American people, apparently, who 'stole' that seat.
"that is consistent with the mainstream interpretation of the Constitution."
Who's the mainstream?
Why do the far left continue to think they are the mainstream? Because they own the media and universities. They own Big Tech, so they own the means of communicating to the masses. But for sheer numbers, they are not the mainstream. They are the minority. The masses hear their words, but do not agree. Just to be clear on this.
Why can't the Constitution just stand on it's own words, without having to be 'interpreted' and with each generation thinking they get it, while the previous ones didn't?
It would be so much easier if we could just select the best jurists we have, instead of having to select one who will always vote a company line. How does that have anything to do with 'interpretation'?
One heartbeat away?
Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM) had a stroke last week and is currently hospitalized. As of right now, the GOP has a 50-49 majority in the Senate.
This is from the Biden who played the moderate and said he'd reach across the aisle and bring us together. In other words, it's not to be trusted. Biden doesn't have any clear sense of what is ideological or divisive and what isn't. He may not appoint someone who raises any warning flags during the confirmation process, but of course the pick will be "ideological."
Joe Biden…dazed and confused. Poor guy. He will make the history books and be an easy answer on Jeopardy. The worst president in the history of the United States. Who is Joe Biden.
the lead candidate, hates honest voting and traditional families, biden spent a generation sabotaging worthy women like janet rogers brown,
I suspect that statement is utter crap. Biden and Co are fine with a judge that gets 51 votes instead of 85. Going back to Truman, a Democrat nominated justice has never failed to receive 60% of the vote (it's happened for Republican nominees eight times, but it will be the Republicans who will be accused of making the process divisive). I suspect this will be the first time the Democrat nominee doesn't hit that threshold. But, given the events of late, I would be shocked if Sinema or Manchin rock the boat on this. And if the person is good enough for Manchin, they will be good enough for Collins and Murkowski.
In terms of the pace of selecting the nominee, this is all about maximizing the political benefit for the midterms. Probably both for fundraising and for the optics put forth by Pravda, I mean the mainstream media (and completely devoid of any mention that it was Biden who actively prevented the first black female justice under Bush).
Biden's criteria are:
1. Black (sub-Saharan African) or at least very dark colored skin (does Kamala Harris count)?
2. Female, per an unclear basis for even saying that (do transgendered persons count, if yes female-to-male and/or male-to-female)?
3. A person who's future court decisions will be determined by code words uttered by Congressional Black Caucus (CBC).
It's not ideological so much as compliant with a specific power base of the party. Their current belief system isn't structured as an ideology per se, and it will swing in the wind as with the many feminists who've been recently belittled as "TERFs." There's no ideology in the fashion of Communism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Capitalism, or any other coherent -ism. The choice reflects simple bare knuckle control over decisions in a fashion "to be determined as our future power requires."
Can someone be nominated and confirmed for the Supreme court before there is a vacancy? The only time vacancy is mentioned in regarding to presidential appointments is for recess appointments. What if Breyer doesn't like the person who is nominated and then confirmed by the Senate, can he renege on what has been claimed as his agreement? Would that leave 10 justices? The last justice to retire was Kennedy and he did so on July 31, 2018 and Kavanaugh who replaced him wasn't confirmed until October of that year.
Open mind, well that is a joke, no one in the country thinks justices are selected because of open minds anymore.
Isn't that "insurrection" to talk about a "stolen seat" when all of the constitutional processes were followed?
Question- can the new nominee even be confirmed before Breyer actually steps down in late June?
"What if Breyer doesn't like the person who is nominated and then confirmed by the Senate, can he renege on what has been claimed as his agreement? Would that leave 10 justices?"
Loophole for court packing.
You think I am joking, don't you?
For that matter, does anybody find it odd that Congress is currently trying to pass a law that makes Trump's "crimes" actually against the law?
That quote from Biden — I realize I haven't even considered taking it seriously. When I stop to think what is Biden doing taking a month
You all appear to be forgetting the disabled Senator from New Mexico. Until he can make it back to teh Senate, they don't have a majority, and Biden isn't going to be nominating anyone
"interprets it in a way that is consistent with the mainstream interpretation of the Constitution"
That would be the US Constitution as defined by the current majority.
Which is the exact opposite of what Biden wants.
"the names on his shortlist “come from the best universities.”
What a pathetic putz. I hope Clyburn crucifies him.
He doesn't have a seat in the US Senate, but all he needs is one or two Democrat Senators willing to work with him to spike any non-Childs nominee
how do they make sense out of that word salad he spouts
Six of the senate votes on the Democrat side are octogenarians
Doesn't that say something about the nature of the modern Democratic Party, that the leadership seems to be filled with not just "old people", but really old people!
Something's really broken there.
Republicans voters should be upset that the R's will roll over again and "fast track" any Leftwing judge that Biden picks. Remember the Kavanaugh circus? Remember how disgraceful the D's acted? Remember Bork? Remember how the Liberal D's tried to filibuster alioto for no reason other than he was conservative?
The D's keep acting this way, borking our nominees, filibustering and trying to destroy them because the R senators REFUSE to retaliate. All this Democrat monkey poo throwing crap would stop if they knew THEIR nominees would also get covered in monkey poo. But the R senators like Miss Lindsey REFUSE to do that.
Why? Simple. Miss Lindsey doesn't want true conservatives on the court anymore than Diane Feinsten does. Miss Lindsey wants liberals and squishes like Kavanaugh or Roberts. So you give the D the power to Bork anyone and that makes a R POTUS reluctant to get into a huge fight over another Scalia. Better just to give in and give them a "moderate">
So now there's a 'mainstream interpretation' of the constitution?
Good to know...
At one point in the '30s and '40s, it was mainstream to round up and gas Jews.
“One Dem Senator had a stroke. And he is a young guy. One or two Dems might not be available to vote.”
That means that for the immediate future, the Republicans have a one vote majority in the Senate. The Dems can’t even get a national dog catcher confirmed, without at least one Republican vote. Which is to say that this is all ground prep for the upcoming confirmation fights. Normally, the Dems could probably expect some Republican votes to confirm their nominees. But some of Biden’s remaining unconfirmed nominees are seriously out there left wing whack jobs. The Black Women, whose names keep popping up, for Breyer’s seat, appear to be almost as bad. Their leading candidate’s “Sherpa” was apparently caught modifying their candidate’s, as well as her opponents’ Wikipedia entries. Not really the deportment we want in the Supreme Court.
On the other side, the entire Republican caucus can see the bullet they dodged with holding off Garland’s confirmation, and confirming Gorsuch instead. Turns out that Garland is very probably the most political and corrupt, and least ethical, AG, since maybe when Nixon was in office. Maybe longer. And we came that close to having someone with his morals and ethics with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. As AG, he will be gone when FJB is ousted from the White House, if not sooner. His Supreme Court nomination was for life.
“Stolen” seat? Advise and consent baby! Haven’t you heard? These days no means no.
Why is it going to take over a month to make a choice?
It's a 50-50 Senate and one of the Democrats (Lujan) had a stroke last week. They don't have a majority until he gets back.
So you can see why Biden would say that his nominee might pick up some Republican votes. She might need some Republican votes.
I wonder if Biden will have as much trouble with the nominee's name as he did on NBC News with Afghanistan's name?
You just know some of the 17 male Black judges on the Federal Court of Appeals are very silently thinking "WTF. I'm as good or better than any of those women. And ain't I still black? This is bowlsheet."
It's what I'd be thinking.
Biden, one his best day, was a compulsive liar, a blowhard, and an incompetent on basically any topic other than playing politics, something he is amazingly skilled for having no other positive traits. In his current senile state, anything he says is utterly meaningless. Personally, if I was a reporter giving him an interview, I would be wondering how my life went so wrong.
At this point, he probably thinks he has to nominate a black woman so he has been trying to find a judge with the surname "Black." Perhaps he is planning a judicial marriage to get the proper candidate.
"we're one heartbeat away from another stolen seat."
Help me out. Is the commenter referring to Garland or someone else?
Others upthread have noted that the Dems are one senator short, and that's likely to remain the case for six weeks or so at the minimum. Team Biden (of which Biden himself is merely a nominal member) needs to drag it out a bit until Lujan comes back, or they get a commitment from one of the three Reps most open to voting for a Dem nominee (Collins, Murk and Graham). They also need time for the Dem media to sell the idea that the nominee is mainstream and moderate, despite what she might have said or written in times past; and to make it look like some elaborate and careful process that can later be sold as a Triumph.
All theatre, of course, but a good show takes time to put together.
Cardi B?
They are in negotiations with Kamala and Hillary
Unless the nominee is particularly egregious or Breyer doesn't actually resign per Yancey's comment above, she will get approved. The Republicans are generally deferential to the President's picks, which I think is why McConnell didn't want to risk bringing Garland up for a vote.
Oh, they will definitely get a couple GOP members to vote for whoever they nominate. Graham, Collins and Romney is three I can think of off the top of my head.
Saint Croix said...
It's a 50-50 Senate and one of the Democrats (Lujan) had a stroke last week. They don't have a majority until he gets back.
So you can see why Biden would say that his nominee might pick up some Republican votes. She might need some Republican votes.
She will not get any GOP votes, until she has enough Dem votes for her to win anyway.
2018, Manchin up for re-election in WVa (where being the vote to defeat Kavanaugh would have nuked his re-election), he still doesn't announce his vote on Kavanaugh until Collins announces she's going to vote for him, giving K the 50th vote that he needed.
2017, Gorsuch nomination: every single GOP Senator voted to nuke the filibuster after the Dems pushed it.
There might be 10 - 15 GOP Senators who'd be willing to vote for Biden's nominee after she hits 50. But there won't be any until then.
The GOP Senator who pushed Biden's nominee from defeat to victory would lose every single committee seat, and be told "go join the Democrats". Not because McConnell wants that, but because the civil war in the Senate that would happen after letting someone get away with that would destroy the Senate GOPs ability to collect more grift.
And the corrupt a$$holes who routinely sell us out, aren't going to give up their own grift
Dems currently have only 49 votes. 1 is down with a stroke. The Repubs have 50 votes.
"Turns out that Garland is very probably the most political and corrupt, and least ethical, AG, since maybe when Nixon was in office"
Gee, and Orin Hatch assured us he was so "moderate". Color me shocked.
Relax, the election isn't until November. It's much too early to start firing up the base.
It would have been easier to get a politically liberal nominee approved if he hadn't insisted it be a black woman.
After all, it's how the new justice votes that counts, not the color of its skin.
rcocean said...
"Turns out that Garland is very probably the most political and corrupt, and least ethical, AG, since maybe when Nixon was in office"
Gee, and Orin Hatch assured us he was so "moderate". Color me shocked.
Yep. But that idiot Hatch still worked successfully to keep Garland off of SCOTUS
What's it like, being determined to never be happy?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा