Fogbow

AndyinPA wrote: ↑Fri Jan 28, 2022 9:15 pm There appear to be many Black women qualified for SCOTUS. I've seen Clyburn talking about Judge Childs. Biden is fulfilling his promise to appoint a Black woman. I don't think that Clyburn has a right to name her, not when there are so many outstanding candidates. All of them are more qualified than at least the last two appointments.

Ben Carson slams Biden for 'abominable' identity politics on SCOTUS pick

Carson also warned about the precedent Biden could be setting by choosing a justice based on race and gender.

"If he can do that, then who else can do it in the future using the criteria that they want, and completely ignoring all the progress that's been made? It makes absolutely no sense, and I hope people will be incensed about it," Carson said, expressing his hope that Biden might change his mind.

"We need a Supreme Court where we have the best candidates who understand the Constitution and are not trying to legislate from the bench," he continued, adding that "to create that kind of situation in the highest court in the land is really abominable, and very detrimental to our freedoms."

When his campaign was faltering during the 2020 Democratic primary in South Carolina, Biden reportedly told Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., he would publicly promise to appoint a Black woman to the high court in exchange for the House majority whip's endorsement.

tek wrote: ↑Sat Jan 29, 2022 7:03 am Reagan? Who's that?

/s

bob wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 1:10 pm Taking a poll:

For those to whom Biden promised to nominate a Black woman to SCOTUS, is that at least partially code for "Southern"?

bob wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 1:10 pm Taking a poll:

I understand Graham's pushing for Childs' nomination because she lived in South Carolina for a few years. While I anticipate the nominee's confirmation to be very close (regardless of who she is), I don't see Graham's vote being the deciding one.

To me, the obvious choice is Kruger for one reason: her age (she's 45, the youngest of short-listers). But Kruger also screams blue state: From California, Ivy-League educated, Beltway experience.

For those to whom Biden promised to nominate a Black woman to SCOTUS, is that at least partially code for "Southern"?

bob wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 1:10 pm I understand Graham's pushing for Childs' nomination because she lived in South Carolina for a few years. While I anticipate the nominee's confirmation to be very close (regardless of who she is), I don't see Graham's vote being the deciding one.

RVInit wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 6:24 pm Well, we don't need any Republicans to vote for Biden's SCOTUS pick. Oh wait. We still have the Manchin and Sinema problem though. I'm sure they will think of something to make their Republican fans love them even more.

RVInit wrote: ↑Mon Jan 31, 2022 6:24 pm Well, we don't need any Republicans to vote for Biden's SCOTUS pick. Oh wait. We still have the Manchin and Sinema problem though. I'm sure they will think of something to make their Republican fans love them even more.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham lavishly praised possible Supreme Court nominee South Carolina US District Judge J. Michelle Childs as "qualified by every measure" and "one of the most decent people I've ever met."

"I can't think of a better person for President Biden to consider for the Supreme Court than Michelle Childs. She has wide support in our state, she's considered to be a fair-minded, highly gifted jurist. She's one of the most decent people I've ever met," Graham, who represents South Carolina and sits on the Judiciary Committee, said in an interview on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday.

"She's highly qualified. She's a good character, and we'll see how she does if she's nominated. But I cannot say anything bad about Michelle Childs. She is an awesome person," Graham continued.

* * *

Graham, who agreed that Childs' educational background would benefit the court, refuted arguments from fellow Republicans that Biden is unfairly imposing race and gender criteria on his nomination. He defended Childs as "highly qualified" and cited Republican President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor as precedent for making nominations based partly on demographic criteria.

* * *

Clyburn said seeing a Black woman on the high court would show children "growing up under moderate circumstances" that they've "got just as much of a chance" to succeed as anyone else. He alluded to Childs' public education at the University of South Carolina School of Law, in contrast to the majority Ivy League-educated justices who have historically served on the bench.*

* * *

Graham, who agreed that Childs' educational background would benefit the court, refuted arguments from fellow Republicans that Biden is unfairly imposing race and gender criteria on his nomination. He defended Childs as "highly qualified" and cited Republican President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Sandra Day O'Connor as precedent for making nominations based partly on demographic criteria.

"President Reagan said running for office that he wanted to put the first female on the court. Whether you like it or not, Joe Biden said, 'I'm going to pick an African-American woman to serve on the Supreme Court," Graham said. Asked about Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker's comment that the nominee would be the "beneficiary" of affirmative action, Graham said that wouldn't be the case with Childs.

"I believe there are plenty of qualified African-American women, conservative and liberal, that could go on to the court. So I don't see Michelle Childs as an act of affirmative action. I do see putting a Black woman on the court, making the court more like America," Graham said. "So let's make the court more like America, but qualifications have to be the biggest consideration, and as to Michelle Childs, I think she is qualified by every measure."

bob wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 3:47 pm 538: What Biden’s Appointees Can Tell Us About His Supreme Court Nominee.

Executive summary: Biden already has been nominating more Blacks and more women than his predecessors. And Biden has been nominating from different backgrounds (read: more public defenders, fewer prosecutors). But Biden prefers (over his predecessors) the Ivy-League* educated.



* And T14 law schools; not all T14 law schools are in the Ivy League.

We looked at data from the Federal Judicial Center and found that while Biden is indeed diversifying the courts — in just one year, he’s appointed 24 percent of the Black women on the federal bench — it’s simply not true that he’s weighing diversity more highly than the qualifications usually used to evaluate judges. In fact, his lower-court appointees are arguably more highly qualified on those metrics than the judges selected by previous presidents, and that’s particularly true of the Black women he’s named.

AndyinPA wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 4:18 pm I don't trust anything Graham ever says. End of comment.

President Biden called Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to discuss his upcoming Supreme Court nomination. He hosted the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee and asked him, along with the Democratic chairman, to suggest potential justices. And top White House aides began reaching out to GOP senators to seek their input.

Together, those actions Tuesday launched Biden’s effort to project at least a veneer of bipartisan consultation as he sets out to make his first pick to the Supreme Court, replacing Justice Stephen G. Breyer. The White House is hoping to smooth the way for Biden’s upcoming choice even though the Senate in recent years has been an increasingly vicious battleground for such nominations.

Biden, who served in the Senate for 36 years, has known many of the key senators for decades, and the confirmation battle will be the latest test of whether his self-proclaimed ability to navigate the Senate can overcome the chamber’s polarization.

Although Democratic senators, if all are present, would not need Republicans to confirm Biden’s eventual nominee, administration officials are working assiduously to ensure his pick does not become only the second Supreme Court justice in well over a century to be confirmed without bipartisan support. The Senate is split 50-50, with Vice President Harris empowered to break ties.

RVInit wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 7:50 pm

AndyinPA wrote: ↑Tue Feb 01, 2022 4:18 pm I don't trust anything Graham ever says. End of comment.

I don't either. Also, I don't believe for one second there would be 10 Republicans voting for Biden's Supreme Court pick. Just because they are voting for his other judges doesn't mean they will support his Supreme Court pick. The far right nut jobs are already coming up with reasons, and I'm sure they will find a reason that they can't rush it before the next election, when they will likely take the Senate back. Thanks to new laws being passed that will allow Republicans to overturn results they don't like, prevent people who have two jobs from being able to get to the polls or vote by mail, or have their vote by mail counted because they printed something or wrote something else in cursive or used dashes to separate parts of a date instead of using '/'.