The next Supreme Court judge

[DrmDoc]

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I don't think anyone is arguing against the choice, but the prejudgement of the type of candidate to be decided.

I believe our highest courts should reflect the diversity of our citizenry; therefore, I think Biden's pre-judgement on the type of candidate to be select is correct.  To infer that a selection should be based on merit doesn't invalidate that qualification as long as it also brings the requisite diversity to our highest court.  Diversity is essential to the fairness, balance, and inclusion we Americans should all hope to achieve through our justice system. 

[StringJunky]

18 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’d be even more specific. People are upset about process. They acknowledge this is how it always works, but they’re mad at Biden for saying it out loud and being transparent about it. RAGE!!!!

Now, you are getting emotional. That approach doesn't get us anywhere. Perhaps, the Dems get it more because they are expected to be more above board, the GOP,  peoples expectations with them are probably at an all time low after Trump. They don't give a FK, as long as they get what they want... there are exceptions, but as a collective, the shit smells stronger than the roses.

[J.C.MacSwell]

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’d be even more specific. People are upset about process. They acknowledge this is how it always works, but they’re mad at Biden for saying it out loud and being transparent about it. RAGE!!!!

I think there is something to be said for less transparency in this regard. When H,W. Bush announced the Clarence Thomas appointment, whether true or not he announced him as the best candidate available.

I think it's regrettable that Biden's ultimate choice cannot be allowed that same level of respect. It's quite possible that she would deserve it.

Edited February 6, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

55 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Now, you are getting emotional

In what way / how so?

44 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think there is something to be said for less transparency in this regard

Ok. When you’re president then you can be less transparent. 

[StringJunky]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

In what way / how so?

 

I know you were being sarcastic, but that's an emotional response. You appear to be painting, all those holding a position contrary to yours, with the same brush. Your opposition are not monolithic. 

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Your opposition are not monolithic. 

No, but the manufactured rage generally is. 

[StringJunky]

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

No, but the manufactured rage generally is. 

Ignore the people doing that and focus on the ones with a reasonable rationale, with genuine concern for the matter.

Here's how the UK appoints SC judiciary for comparison:

https://www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/jud-appts/

 

 

Edited February 7, 2022 by StringJunky

[iNow]

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Ignore the people doing that and focus on the ones with a reasonable rationale, with genuine concern for the matter.

When I do this, I keep returning to the same question… Where were these people over the last 200+ years? Why are they only speaking up now today on this topic for the very first time? 

[StringJunky]

34 minutes ago, iNow said:

When I do this, I keep returning to the same question… Where were these people over the last 200+ years? Why are they only speaking up now today on this topic for the very first time? 

Probably because of the reach, speed and availability of the internet. Many topics are news now that the mainstream media never touched before, as there were higher priorities in the limited capacity of the media then. There was less transparency from institutions because of that lack of technology.

This kind of public oversight is only going to increase. Everyone is seeing much more of the mechanics and reality of government through the media nowadays and have opinions about it, which they can easily broadcast, hence the increased noise.

Edited February 7, 2022 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

When I do this, I keep returning to the same question… Where were these people over the last 200+ years? Why are they only speaking up now today on this topic for the very first time? 

Setting aside the mostly waiting to be born part...I'm sure the progress has been slower than you would have liked, and maybe more painfully achieved...but it's been there.

[iNow]

Also, it’s being stoked by the crowd who would look at Biden’s cancer research efforts and says, “oh look, now Biden is even trying to take away our cancer!”

Manufactured outrage. Benghazi! Her Emails! Murderous caravans at the border! Socialism!! Stoke the fear, pump up the rage balloon, control the masses!

One needs look no further than this very thread to confirm it works even on otherwise very intelligent and thoughtful folks. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

In what way / how so?

Ok. When you’re president then you can be less transparent. 

...INow appoint INow to the Supreme Court...for reasons I won't go into but hold to be self evident...

JC MacSwell 2026

[iNow]

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44235.pdf
 

Quote

Virtually every President is presumed to take into account a wide range of political considerations when faced with the responsibility of filling a Supreme Court vacancy. For instance, most Presidents, it is assumed, will be inclined to select a nominee whose political or ideological views appear compatible with their own. Specifically, “Presidents are, for the most part, results- oriented. This means that they want Justices on the Court who will vote to decide cases consistent with the president’s policy preferences.”37

The President also may consider whether a prospective nomination will be pleasing to the constituencies upon whom he especially relies for political support or whose support he would like to attract.38 For political or other reasons, nominee attributes such as party affiliation, ideological orientation, geographic origin, ethnicity, religion, and gender may be of particular importance to a President.39 A President also might take into account whether the existing “balance” among the Court’s members (in a political party, ideological, demographic, or other sense) should be maintained or altered.40

<…>

A President’s search for professional excellence in a nominee rarely proceeds without also taking political factors into account. Rather, “more typically,” a President “seeks the best person from among a list of those who fulfill certain of these other [political] criteria and, of course, who share a president’s vision of the nation and the Court.”52

 

[StringJunky]

56 minutes ago, iNow said:

Also, it’s being stoked by the crowd who would look at Biden’s cancer research efforts and says, “oh look, now Biden is even trying to take away our cancer!”

Manufactured outrage. Benghazi! Her Emails! Murderous caravans at the border! Socialism!! Stoke the fear, pump up the rage balloon, control the masses!

One needs look no further than this very thread to confirm it works even on otherwise very intelligent and thoughtful folks. 

Clearly, It is you that is endowing 'outrage' upon those whose ideas you oppose.

 

[iNow]

🤷‍♂️ 

[iNow]

From the Congressional Research Service reference shared in my post immediately preceding SJs (emphasis added):

Virtually every President is presumed to take into account a wide range of political considerations when faced with the responsibility of filling a Supreme Court vacancy.

For political or other reasons, nominee attributes such as party affiliation, ideological orientation, geographic origin, ethnicity, religion, and gender may be of particular importance to a President.

A President’s search for professional excellence in a nominee rarely proceeds without also taking political factors into account.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

From the Congressional Research Service reference shared in my post immediately preceding SJs (emphasis added):

Virtually every President is presumed to take into account a wide range of political considerations when faced with the responsibility of filling a Supreme Court vacancy.

For political or other reasons, nominee attributes such as party affiliation, ideological orientation, geographic origin, ethnicity, religion, and gender may be of particular importance to a President.

A President’s search for professional excellence in a nominee rarely proceeds without also taking political factors into account.

The antithesis of UK SC selection then. Thank you for bringing the US judicial selection criteria to the fore.

[Endy0816]

57 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The antithesis of UK SC selection then. Thank you for bringing the US judicial selection criteria to the fore.

Also have life tenure with little chance of removal.

With everything based upon their interpretation of the Constitution, what sort of person they are matters more than anything else honestly. There's not even any requirements for the position itself.

[iNow]

This view is pretty insightful into why the court is currently made up the way it is.

https://www.vox.com/2022/2/14/22925457/supreme-court-senate-confirmation-ketanji-brown-jackson-leondra-kruger-michelle-childs

Quote

The fact that each state gets two senators, regardless of population, has a massive distorting effect on American politics — especially because Republicans are more likely to control low-population states. Thanks to this malapportionment, every voter in red Wyoming has 68 times more impact on the makeup of the Senate than each voter in blue California.

In the current Senate, Democrats and Republicans each control the same number of seats, but Democratic senators represent nearly 42 million more people than their Republican counterparts. Indeed, if the United States chose senators in free and fair elections where every citizen’s vote counts equally, Republicans would not have controlled the Senate since the late 1990s.

Because every federal judge must be confirmed by the Senate, Senate malapportionment is the primary reason why conservative Republicans dominate the Supreme Court — although the Electoral College, which allowed both George W. Bush and Donald Trump to occupy the White House after losing the popular vote, sure didn’t help

[CharonY]

On 2/7/2022 at 1:27 PM, StringJunky said:

The antithesis of UK SC selection then. Thank you for bringing the US judicial selection criteria to the fore.

It should be noted that the UK SC has also limited power as it cannot overturn primary legislation by Parliament. Inherently, their appointment therefore becomes less political as it cannot be used to change legislative agendas (from what I understand at least).

[StringJunky]

18 hours ago, CharonY said:

It should be noted that the UK SC has also limited power as it cannot overturn primary legislation by Parliament. Inherently, their appointment therefore becomes less political as it cannot be used to change legislative agendas (from what I understand at least).

Is that not a proper separation of powers?

[Endy0816]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Is that not a proper separation of powers?

 

Checks and balances based system. House, Senate, Executive, Judiciary are each meant to check the powers of the others.

They can't pass laws or execute them(or choose their own members), so separation exists in that sense.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Endy0816

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, Endy0816 said:

 

More like a chess game here. House, Senate, Executive, Judiciary are each meant to keep each other in check.

They can't pass laws or execute them, so separation does exist in that sense.

It does seem though that the courts are dragged in an awful lot by parties. It seems to be an an accepted tactic to stall  legislative progress. The last time there was any major judicial input in the UK was Brexit, I think. I suppose this is an issue of having states with more autonomy than our county councils.

Edited February 15, 2022 by StringJunky

[Endy0816]

28 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It does seem though that the courts are dragged in an awful lot by parties. It seems to be an an accepted tactic to stall  legislative progress. The last time there was any major judicial input in the UK was Brexit, I think. I suppose this is an issue of having states with more autonomy than our county councils.

Yeah the Federal government itself was only granted some powers.

Lot of modern stuff was not even dreamed of back in the day, so we're left hashing things out at the State level with the legal challenges being part of that.

Am jealous of the speed UK can act at times. Sometimes our parties join hands or one has enough control of everything but that's rare.

[iNow]

Biden nominated Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson