What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 15: Help Us, Ruth Bader Ginsburg! You're Our Only Hope!

Status
Not open for further replies.
ScoobyDoo said:
I don't. They are the root that spawned Dump. Without Reagan and all his disciples we never would have gotten to this point.
Click to expand...

Dude, if we're playing Wishing Well I'll snuff every R from Nixon on. I'm just trying to reset to a reasonable save point to give us more time to kill fascists.
 
Kepler said:
Dude, if we're playing Wishing Well I'll snuff every R from Nixon on. I'm just trying to reset to a reasonable save point to give us more time to kill fascists.
Click to expand...

I don't see one as any better than the other. If the rule of law is truly over than I'd rather have them destroy it out in the open instead of under the cover of night like they were under Reagan, and the Bush's.
 
Handyman said:
He had to say it because he made the promise before. Who gives a crap what the orcs think he has constituencies to satisfy and promises to keep.
Click to expand...

I prefer less noise and he could fulfill the promise without announcing it. This isn't that difficult.
 
Slap Shot said:
I prefer less noise and he could fulfill the promise without announcing it. This isn't that difficult.
Click to expand...

Actually he did, because he was asked about it. And he would continue to be asked about it until he answered. And truth is he needs less red meat for the press to use as proof that his party is a mess. This really isn't that difficult.
 
Slap Shot said:
Typical short-sided replies. The downside would have been less sans the proclamation without question.
Click to expand...

Susan agrees with you. She said biden politicized this but that trump saying he’d replace rbg with a woman wasn’t the same. Nor was his saying he’d only pick judges from the preselect federalist list.

susie also wouldn’t rule out supporting trump in 2024. Really hope she walks into oncoming traffic soon
 
Lindsay Graham is far more supportive of a black woman than Susan. Susan is setting stage to not vote to confirm and then say it was rushed, after she voted for beer boy and acb, fastest confirmation one could conceive
 
Deutsche Gopher Fan said:
Susan agrees with you. She said biden politicized this but that trump saying he’d replace rbg with a woman wasn’t the same. Nor was his saying he’d only pick judges from the preselect federalist list.

susie also wouldn’t rule out supporting trump in 2024. Really hope she walks into oncoming traffic soon
Click to expand...

Majority of Americans want Biden to consider 'all possible nominees' for Supreme Court vacancy: POLL

A new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds that a plurality of Americans view the Supreme Court as motivated by partisanship, while President Joe Biden's campaign trail vow to select a Black woman to fill a high-court vacancy without reviewing all potential candidates evokes a sharply negative reaction from voters.

The ABC News/Ipsos poll, which was conducted by Ipsos in partnership with ABC News using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel, comes days after the most senior member of the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, announced his retirement at the end of the current term. Breyer's announcement provides Biden the opportunity to change the demographic makeup of the conservative-leaning bench.
Click to expand...

That's not just a MAGA opinion.

Handyman said:
And you know this how exactly?
Click to expand...

Because this is not being received positively (as I predicted). Good Lord you realize I'm in the camp of the Democrats right? What is so difficult to understand about this creating bad optics?

It was a stupid, myopic and tone-deaf statement and if they went ahead and nominated a qualified black female without such an announcement the conversation would have centered far more around her qualifications than anything else. I don't care about "placating MAGAs" who can't be turned. It's not about that. This simply obscures the process and makes it far more political than it needed to be and anyone arguing otherwise is not thinking clearly.
 
Last edited:
I saw that poll too. I’m just not in agreement .Trump had a list to choose from and they all had one quality- they’d overturn r v w.

i just don’t think this will be the nail in his coffin. Name a black woman who will likely be way more qualified than thr last two imbeciles and then confirm her and move on.
 
There's no such thing as the most perfectly qualified SCOTUS justice. It's why there's only basic classifications from the ABA.

If someone is qualified, great. You're never going to convince me that there are more qualified candidates than the two black women already named publicly. If you stripped their identifying information I'd say, "Yeah, these are pretty fucking good nominees. Who are they?" Which bypasses all this identity over qualifications nonsense from the right.

On the other hand, we SHOULD have at least equal representation on the Supreme Court assuming all are qualified. Because identify informs opinions. You just can't divorce the two. Having nine old straight white men will never allow the bench to make truly informed decisions on the law. The law does not live in a vacuum in black and white ink. Not at that level. Arguments are made in conference behind closed doors. and without representation in that argument, you're relying on someone else to make an impassioned argument on your behalf. It's just not the same.

I recently saw somewhere that no SCOTUS justice has ever served as a public defender. Maybe that's true maybe it isn't, but it certainly sounds about right. And that's really fucked when you consider the number and vulnerability of the people who need protection under public defenders.

Now, we've got a chance to give black women a voice on the Supreme Court for the first time ever. She'd be every bit as qualified as a justice as any of her white male counterparts. However, a white male is not qualified for this vacancy.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
I recently saw somewhere that no SCOTUS justice has ever served as a public defender. Maybe that's true maybe it isn't, but it certainly sounds about right. And that's really fucked when you consider the number and vulnerability of the people who need protection under public defenders.
Click to expand...

It would be really nice to see SCOTUS justices with expertise in:
  • Criminal Defense
  • Employment and Labor Law
  • Environmental Law
  • Immigration Law
  • Civil Rights and Civil Liberties
 
dxmnkd316 said:
There's no such thing as the most perfectly qualified SCOTUS justice. It's why there's only basic classifications from the ABA.

If someone is qualified, great. You're never going to convince me that there are more qualified candidates than the two black women already named publicly. If you stripped their identifying information I'd say, "Yeah, these are pretty fucking good nominees. Who are they?" Which bypasses all this identity over qualifications nonsense from the right.

On the other hand, we SHOULD have at least equal representation on the Supreme Court assuming all are qualified. Because identify informs opinions. You just can't divorce the two. Having nine old straight white men will never allow the bench to make truly informed decisions on the law. The law does not live in a vacuum in black and white ink. Not at that level. Arguments are made in conference behind closed doors. and without representation in that argument, you're relying on someone else to make an impassioned argument on your behalf. It's just not the same.

I recently saw somewhere that no SCOTUS justice has ever served as a public defender. Maybe that's true maybe it isn't, but it certainly sounds about right. And that's really fucked when you consider the number and vulnerability of the people who need protection under public defenders.

Now, we've got a chance to give black women a voice on the Supreme Court for the first time ever. She'd be every bit as qualified as a justice as any of her white male counterparts. However, a white male is not qualified for this vacancy.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. But it would be very well possible to achieve this without the statement that was given.
 
Slap Shot said:
I don't disagree. But it would be very well possible to achieve this without the statement that was given.
Click to expand...

Right, but then it's a nothingburger because it has nothing to do with the actual process. It's just a statement the media has decided to turn into a thing because they're fucking ghouls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top