Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) declined to talk about Childs at all: “I’m not going to comment. Nope.”
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)... offered a subtle warning.... “You want somebody who is going to be reflective of the needs of working families and understands that we are moving towards an oligarchy in this country"...
While most progressive lawmakers aren’t directly criticizing Childs for her past work... [s]ome are fighting to make sure Biden chooses someone other than Childs....
One top progressive operative, speaking candidly on condition of anonymity, said the Supreme Court vacancy is a chance for “Biden and the left to have a win in what's been a really challenging legislative climate” and that they’re “not interested in creating a problem for Biden on this.”...
[O]ther liberal advocates view the South Carolina judge... differently. “Childs has a record at an openly anti-union law firm,” said Larry Cohen, a former labor leader and the chair of Our Revolution, a group with ties to Sanders....
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), who serves on the Judiciary Committee, said he would closely scrutinize her positions on workplace safety and worker protections should she be nominated. He downplayed the idea that her record is currently a deal-breaker....
Clyburn is one of the few Biden confidants to launch such a public campaign for his preferred pick. While he has done so aggressively, the White House considers it normal for a lawmaker of his stature to make a forceful push for a candidate from his home state.....
Posts
40 comments:
An "Oligarchy".. hmm.
hmmm - what does Bernie mean? Bernie supports the Biden clan. Certainly the insider-D Oligarchy isn't a concern of sweet Sesame Street Bernie... Right?
Unions - are the direct route for the democrat party mob bosses to peel a bit more from your paycheck.
Childs has a record at an openly anti-union law firm
Anti-union is good but is it for the right reason, is the question.
You want somebody who is going to be reflective of the needs of working families and understands that we are moving towards an oligarchy in this country
I guess we should ask their opinion then of the Canadian Freedom Convoy.
Clyburn has more clout here than the article states, having been responsible for Joe winning the 2020 Dem nomination. However, it is curious to me that Clyburn is aggressively pushing an SC candidate who has an anti-union background as a lawyer…. Hmmm…
Jim Clyburn is stumping for judge Michelle Childs to get the president's nod.
What about Kramer's lawyer, Jackie Chiles?
I don't know if the Democrats are this smart, but that sure is an effective strategy to make this judge more popular. Warren and Sanders are against her? Then I certainly prefer her over other choices. But that may be a reverse psychology ploy. And in any case, if she does get on the bench, more likely than not she will "grow" in her role.
It's hard to do worse than the Wise Latina. Biden is going to pick a bug-eyed leftie and the senate will confirm that bug-eyed leftie. I'd bet a very considerable sum that nothing will be discussed about high school parties. When a Republican president nominates someone to the Supreme Court, the lefties wage scorched earth warfare. Nominations of a Democrat president are either politely stalled or confirmed in due course without a tsunami of rancor.
- Krumhorn
(my preferred adjectives: brilliant/awesome)
Joe owes Clyburn.
Bernie worried about an American oligarchy is rich (pardon the pun), as almost all of the oligarchs are left-wing lunatics.
You'd think he'd recognize fellow travelers...
Clyburn was the kingmaker in 2020- without him, Biden doesn't even win the nomination. I don't think the choice is going to be made by Biden in any case- he makes no decisions any longer is my guess, but if he does, he will probably choose Childs if he even remembers who Clyburn is.
Yeah, an oligarchy of the Left consisting of the tech titans in Silicon Valley who make billions from the CCP and then donate millions to the Dems. Biden and little Biden like doing business in China. And the beat goes on….
So, let’s put an Asian-American on the Court who is not friendly to the CCP or in the pocket of the Left Oligarchs.
Asian-Americans are being discriminated against by Harvard but maybe they can be good enough for the Supreme Court? Why is Biden discriminating against Asian-Americans? Oh, it was a campaign promise to garner the black vote in South Carolina. Now, I remember…you do for me, and I’ll do for you. Quid pro quo? But, don’t we want the Court to reflect what America looks like? We already have a Black but no Asians.
All the right people know that only Yale and Harvard law graduates are truly qualified for the Supreme Court.
Beiden has to dance with the one that brought him. Bernie and the left will question her severely to keep up the union cash but will vote for her. Those theatrics will probably just piss the justice off and widen her decision boundaries. Even if I were a democrat, If liberals rubbed my face in the dirt in public, I would vote against them every now and then.
Michelle Childs is, and Has Been, the price for Clyburn's support
Why the heck didn't Biden Just Say: "When I'm Elected, Michelle Childs will be on the court!"
It would have been so much better than saying 'my pick for SCotUS will be decided by race and gender'
It's NOT like he has any choice Michelle Childs is The Price to pay
“You want somebody who is going to be reflective of the needs of working families and understands that we are moving towards an oligarchy in this country"
Bernie seems to be cheering on the oligarchy and looking for someone who actively supports it.
Democrats shot themselves in the foot with Trump's nomination of Ozerden to the 5th Circuit from District Court Mississippi. Bigots fixated on the Stanford Law Episcopalian's Turkish ancestry to block him. But because he had granted several employer motions to dismiss racial discrimination lawsuits, Democrats would not supply the votes needed to confirm him. Of course he was replaced with a right wing ideologue who was confirmed on party line vote.
Progs don't want a candidate that several Republicans would be happy to vote for. Lindsey Graham is publicly on board with Childs and Colins, Murkowski, Romney, etc. etc. would vote for her easily.
Top dems WANT a battle, they want a radical, so that they can accuse the GOP of voting against a black woman.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)...we are moving towards an oligarchy in this country"...
Nice of Bernie to let us know what his plans are.
Look, it's simple. Is she Black? Check!
Has she got a cunt? Check!
Put the bitch on the Court already.
Biden poisoned the pond with the woman of color promise. No one wants to drink.
So what if Childs worked for an anti-union law firm? Except for teachers and SEIU the Democrats threw the union rank and file out of their coalition during Obama’s second term. So why should anyone care?
Top dems WANT a battle, they want a radical, so that they can accuse the GOP of voting against a black woman.
Yes. Childs will get at an absolute minimum of 5 GOP votes (Graham, Romney, Murkowski, Sasse, Collins). More importantly, she will not face any combative scrutiny.
A rabid Black female left winger who publicly deplores the US and the Constitution will only get Romney and Murkowski. She might get a few tough questions, but the GOP will back off because they shit their pants in fear of being called White Supremacists.
This is all a bunch of garbage and kabuki.
Any person with above a room temperature IQ will be able to predict what any Democrat appointed judge will decide on any case of importance with 99.99999% certainty.
Strangely enough, or maybe not, I don't see the Constitution mentioned anywhere, neither in the excerpt from the story nor in the comments.
Typical RINOS. They are the reason the Republicans will blow the upcoming elections. They have no need to confirm this judge in general and certainly not during an election year. With Breyer retiring there isn't much of a chance of a 4-3 tie.
If the Left wanted to make the point that the Supreme Court is a political/legislative body (rather than a judicial one), they could do no better than making arguments in favor of a candidate based on her perceived positions on public policy issues.
My labor law professor was a management attorney - generally, if you got into labor law, you represent one side or the other. He was in the running to be Reagan's labor secretary, but loved teaching. He used to teach us through war stories, in addition to the regular case work - during which I learned a lot of practical lessons.
Anyway, one of his "adversaries" was Arthur Goldberg, a labor lawyer who was a Kennedy appointee to the Court. I was in the Supreme Court one day waiting for oral arguments and was seated next to Justice Goldberg (ret.) - I mentioned my professor used to speak highly of him and he smiled and told me that, while they were on opposite sides, my professor always kept the interest of the worker paramount.
Indeed, this is one of the things I learned from my professor - the "counselor" side of the practice of law. Sometimes, a management-side labor lawyer can have more positive impact for the worker than can the union's attorney. I am in a union now - have been for many years. I'm generally on the left side of the political spectrum. Nevertheless, it would be stupid - gross stupidity for the progressives to sink a skilled attorney like Judge Childs.
This is why the WH leaked the news of Breyer's retirement: they wanted to get ahead of this fight and not have it in the Summer when the primaries would be on the horizon.
The first I heard of this Clyburn pick was the Althousian commentariat (was it you?). If I recall Ann poo-pooed the idea in the comments so I figured it was probably true.
"Jupiter said...
Has she got a cunt? Check!"
That's no longer necessary.
One top progressive operative, speaking candidly on condition of anonymity, said the Supreme Court vacancy is a chance for “Biden and the left to have a win in what's been a really challenging legislative climate” and that they’re “not interested in creating a problem for Biden on this.”...
Both Manchin and Senima have to approve the nominee for her to have any chance. News flash to "progressives": if you like the nominee a lot, they won't
OBVIOUSLY these progressives are RACIST.
That is the ONLY reason that anyone could ever oppose a Woman of Color.
Jupiter said...
Look, it's simple. Is she Black? Check!
Has she got a cunt? Check!
Put the bitch on the Court already.
You forgot consistent leftist drone.
Janice Rogers Brown was specifically filibustered by a senator who was a close companion of many segregationists and has said blatantly racist shit all of his life.
Joe Biden has made it clear this is about helping him, not black people.
Poor strategy criticizing her representation of clients. The other short-lister represented terrorists.
Bernie and Liz will do a great job of arguing that clients who take anti-union positions are a deal breaker but those clients who want to kill Americans are no problem.
Somehow the GOP Senate will fuck this up.
Both Manchin and Senima have to approve the nominee for her to have any chance. News flash to "progressives": if you like the nominee a lot, they won't
Sinema is a likely yes vote. There's no issue with the filibuster, and it will help her against any primary challenger in a few years. Manchin might be a tougher sell, but he's likely to fall back on, "the president deserves to have his pick unless she's obviously unqualified."
I like what I've heard about her. She's not an Ivy League graduate--went to state schools for university and law school. She has been (I think) both a state court and a federal court trial judge--and a practicing lawyer. You can get separated from the real world if you focus exclusively on appellate work. What you may have here is a "wise Black woman". She's probably confirmable---but Shufflin Senescent Senile Joe has managed to lob a meadow muffin the punch bowl here insofar as her nomination is concerned.
Childs is in some ways similar Justice Thomas -- not that she faced the poverty and real discrimination that shaped his childhood -- but both are black southerners and relative outsiders politically.
The optics are good. And that's what matters in politics.
I like Vaclav's comment. Lawyers specializing in any field, or none, can find themselves representing clients from both sides: labor and management, injury victims and insurance companies.
Many who don't are just ideologues. Defense attorneys often become prosecutors first. Some do it for the practical training. More recently, many of them do it to bring our system of justice to its knees. Biden's Party clearly prefers the latter type of person.
It would be an easy win if Biden chose Childs. But of course, that is not the point of the nomination.
Maynard said...
A rabid Black female left winger who publicly deplores the US and the Constitution will only get Romney and Murkowski. She might get a few tough questions, but the GOP will back off because they shit their pants in fear of being called White Supremacists.
Murkowski wants to get re-elected this year, Collins will be willing to provide the 51st vote, but not the 50th, same with any other "GOP" Senator who wants to live through the end of the year.
Just as Manchin hid behind Collins' skirts, and didn't announce his vote for Kavanaugh until Collins put him over the top, no GOP Senator is going to vote for a Dem SCOTUS nominee who doesn't already have 50 Dem Senator votes, and they're not going to abstain to make it a tie, either.
I respect David Lat's coverage of the odds & candidates and that of SCOTUSblog more than any DC news outlet like Politico, The Hill, etc.
President Biden's Supreme Court Nominee Will Be....: Here are updated odds that reflect the current state of play
His Substack seems well-worth a subscription to support if you are into legal politics & news.
Post a Comment