Another white person on the Supreme Court?

Republicans really blew an opportunity here. But I’m glad they did.

Well we have a latina(latinx) and one black man on the court. Proportionally speaking out of 9 people its representative.

Just what the world needs, more white conservatives in charge.

You're asking this expecting more from depraved, criminal, self-serving cunts?

So it’s a done deal then?

Well it should be a woman OP, considering we now only have 2 women with Ruth gone.

No Asians? No black females? No indigenous? No gay males?

All of the Republicans are Catholics.

No trans people on the court.

What about Christian white men? They're the truly oppressed!

It’s 2020 for gods sake. We don’t need religious nutcases in the justice system. That is what Iran is for.

They can’t find any evangelicals smart enough so they keep nominating Catholics. I think this makes seven in a row.

There are enough white people on the court. This is overkill.

R8 Catholics historically were more Democrat-leaning so this is a new trend.

Has OP forgotten who the President is?

It’s been going on for thirty years.

Republicans are so hopelessly racist that they will shoot their campaigns in the foot to give it to a white lady.

Sheesh.

OP you are delusional with your expectations.

They should find the most qualified person for the job.

Biden will nominate a black woman so he can get a twofer. The next one after that will be another Latino to shore up the Latino vote. Both parties play this game. So no to gay or Asian nominees because we’re just not important enough even though woke Dems are now in favor of quotas.

They should select a black trans person instead of that Catholic anti-abortion bitch.

As he is already an EGOT recipient, so it’s only natural that the position go to John Legend.

#SCOTUSSoWhite

Who uses the word ‘woke’ still like its 2017?

Cling to that bitterness!!! Never let go!!

R23 Fuck off, I’ll use woke if I want to, and go ahead and try painting me as a Trumptard, you moron. Not all of us here are white and fake liberals, some of us are sick of Dem’s placating hard left ideology that would lead to the downfall of true liberalism.

Ok bitter.

Do we really need another white lady bossing is around?

Sorry but being white is clearly not the problem here. She is nuts, a religioius bigot. That's exactly the problem

Ru Paul should be nominated.

This is true. Religious wackos are dangerous no matter what they look like. And to mix that with the law is just a dysfunctional disaster which is why these nuts need to become pastors and preachers and not shore court justices.

If we wanted to hear from a religious nut job we would go to one of those massive churches and not the Supreme Court.

With Barrett there will be six Catholics on the Supreme Court.

trump & co once again reveal their absolute depravity when he nominates a religious bigot who will strip rights from all manner of people in the name of God.

trump cares nothing for religion or the people he will oppress in his lunatic quest for power and wealth.

Complete and utter depravity and cruelty and a disdainful disregard for others.

[quote]All of the Republicans are Catholics.

And they were all put there for one reason: Abortion.

Not all Catholics are against abortion, but the ones who are...are rabidly so.

That's not really the issue here, is it? Madman Trump is trying to steal the election and he wants a person who will do it. This odious selection is supposed to energize the evangelicals who were growing less enamored of Trump. It is also supposed to be a woman so Trumpers can claim to "own the libs".

When Biden wins, he should move immediately on Mayor Pete's plan to increase the number of SCOTUS justices.

Legal scholars, here's a question: The Constitution does not specify an upper limit # of justices, so even if Barrett gets on, theoretically, Biden can simply nominate a choice of his own, yes? Taking the number to 10.

If Biden wins, and we have a Democratic House and Senate...they should immediately pass federal laws legalizing abortion and gay marriage, and take these issues out of the Supreme Court's hand permanently.

A Catholic supreme court majority - why doesn't Qanon go after that? A Vatican-led operation to steal American kids

No, R35, that is not how it works.

Congress would have to pass a law increasing the Court from 9 to a number certain, say 13.

Once Biden signs that bill, it becomes a law.

Now there are 4 vacancies.

Biden will nominate 4 and the Senate will vote.

That’s how you deal with Republican hijinks.

Term limits would require a constitutional amendment.

[quote] Biden can simply nominate a choice of his own, yes? Taking the number to 10.

You want an odd number to avoid ties.

It's supposed to be white Christian country. The oj Simpson jury proved that juries should be white.

We are putting the cart before the horse here, first Biden has to win and the Democrats have to take over the Senate probably with an extra to spare because of Manchin. Without both of those the Republicans will still be in control. With just Biden no control of the Senate, I could see the Republicans refusing to accept any Biden nominations the entire four years of a Biden first term.

[quote] They should find the most qualified person for the job.

That’s right. And I is her.

Or is it she? Ah, well, it ain’t that important.

[quote] If Biden wins, and we have a Democratic House and Senate...they should immediately pass federal laws legalizing abortion and gay marriage, and take these issues out of the Supreme Court's hand permanently.

You don’t think these laws would be ultimately decided in a lawsuit that goes up to, you guessed it, the Supreme Court?

[quote]You don’t think these laws would be ultimately decided in a lawsuit that goes up to, you guessed it, the Supreme Court?

A law passed by Congress and signed by a President has much more validity than a tenuous Supreme Court decision, which is all that Roe v Wade is.

I missed where the founding fathers declared the Supreme Court would be an organ of the Roman Catholic church. The US is 22 percent Catholic and the Supreme Court 66%. Holy Opus Dei.

Isn't abortion a bizarre issue to kill democracy, access to healthcare, the environment, protection from predatory corporations, and on and on for? Italy and Ireland aren't as fucked up over it as this stupid country is. It's an issue that effects a trivial number of people each year, and abortion rates are dropping. I know - it's Murder! Whatever. Thanks one issue voters.

Catholics need to get over abortion. It's been legal for nearly 50 years.

Abortion is in the best interests of society. Crime rates dramatically lowered in the early 90s, two decades after Roe v. Wade. Lots of future criminals were aborted.

[quote] A law passed by Congress and signed by a President has much more validity than a tenuous Supreme Court decision, which is all that Roe v Wade is.

Ah, then I guess we have nothing to worry about with the ACA.

Right?

[quote]The US is 22 percent Catholic and the Supreme Court 66%. Holy Opus Dei.

You’re going to plotz when I tell you that the US population is 2.2% Jewish but the Supreme Court is 22% Jewish. Before RBG died it was 33%.

I’m not sure if increasing the number of justices will work well because when there’s a GOP administration, they can just increase it again.

We need term limits for justices for sure

Ireland was strangled by Catholicism for years yet in the past few years the people have voted to legalise abortion and gay marriage. American Catholics are a different breed

[Quote] Catholics need to get over abortion.

Actually most Catholics are over it. The evangelicals keep making this an issue

[Quote] With just Biden no control of the Senate, I could see the Republicans refusing to accept any Biden nominations the entire four years of a Biden first term.

This is exactly what they threatened if Hillary were elected. At that point Hillary would have given the Senate time to offer “consent.” If they didn’t, she would install a SCOTUS judge and let the courts decide what “consent” in the Constitution really means

The Supreme Court can’t outlaw abortion. They can only say laws outlawing abortion are not unconstitutional. The people in individual states need to keep abortion legal.

[Quote] Legal scholars, here's a question: The Constitution does not specify an upper limit # of justices, so even if Barrett gets on, theoretically, Biden can simply nominate a choice of his own, yes? Taking the number to 10.

Not a legal scholar here but FDR tried to increase the number when his conservative SCOTUS kept saying his Progressive actions were unconstitutional. FDR was unsuccessful so it can’t be that easy

Some states like CA have the right to abortion in their constitution.

[Quote] The people in individual states need to keep abortion legal.

The problem is SCOTUS can overrule the laws of individual states. Jeffrey Toobin believes there is a mechanism by which not only can SCOTUS overturn Roe v Wade but can point to a certain part of the constitution to say any state laws protecting abortion are unconstitutional too

That's why a Democratic Congress needs to pass a federal law ASAP.

"Would it have killed them?" you ask, OP. Yes. It would. Trump loathes black people. He also loathes anyone who's "funny," meaning gay or handicapped or anything. Look at Steve Mnuchin or Tom Cotton. See? They're not funny.

The whole abortion argument is stupid. People who have the money travel to states where abortion is easy to get. Poor women are the ones who have to suffer and be made poorer. Some women said that conservatives in office often make their mistresses have abortions. Such hypocrisy. Republicans hate any kind of welfare but poor women often have to get welfare after they are forced to have kids.

[quote]Ireland was strangled by Catholicism for years yet in the past few years the people have voted to legalise abortion and gay marriage. American Catholics are a different breed

A majority of Americans want abortion kept legal as well.

Everybody needs to drop the Court packing nonsense. It’s like Medicare for all, or any other position pill/ litmus test that the right wing demands that democrats take.

Why don’t we just focus on how corrupt republicans are at shoving a confirmation down Americans throat even after the refused to even here Merrick.

Democrats need to continually state that she WILL overturn Roe vs Wade. More Americans are in favor of keeping it in place and outnumber those who want it overturned.

[quote] Not a legal scholar here but FDR tried to increase the number when his conservative SCOTUS kept saying his Progressive actions were unconstitutional. FDR was unsuccessful so it can’t be that easy

R55, During FDR’s administration there were four conservatives, three liberals and two swing votes on the SCOTUS bench. As you said, the swing votes were siding with the conservatives on a lot of cases involving FDR’s New Deal legislation. Fed up, FDR announced his plan to increase the number of justices to 15. The swing votes got the message and started to side with the liberals. In law lore, it’s called “the switch in time that saved nine.”

Morality is something we need. Desert societies where resources are scarce stone slutty women to death. We need to start having babies and end immigration. Do u consider Irish people white? Most don't.

Deserts and sluts and babies and the Irish? What are you on about? Honey, if you’re looking for morality you sure won’t find it in the depraved and amoral Republican Party.

Banning abortion simply punishes poor women. Wealthy women will always have options.

Abortion has been with us for thousands of years, there are natural methods for ending pregnancies that are still in use. Banning them won't stop abortions, but more women will die or be maimed if they become illegal.

Anti-abortion folks claim to care about life, they really don't. They are mean and punitive people. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

R67 I refuse to believe that our only options are "safe" abortions (and really. Let's send you into the vacuum to your death and call it "safe") and back alley abortions. There is also educating women about contraceptives, and there is adoption.

It could have been worse. Nothing we can do about it. Let's move on and hope for the best.

Love to see an indigenous candidate or Black female. just no more white people.

The morning after pill has been a huge help in preventing pregnancy, that's why abortion numbers are down. Of course, many asshole conservatives want that banned too.

A white country must have a white court. nonwhites need to stay in their own countries

All Trump nominees to the circuit courts have been either white or Asian. One Cuban woman as well.

White or Asian. .

Jeez these republicans really hate black people the most.

As of June, he’s installed 53 circuit court judges.

1 Latina

7 Asians (13.2% despite being 5% of citizens)

45 whites

Remember this:

[quote] Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump reportedly asked. (He later denied having said this.)

[quote] Months earlier, Trump had reportedly complained that Nigerian immigrants would never “go back to their huts” and Haitians “all have aids.” He doubled down at the Oval Office meeting. “Why do we need more Haitians?” Trump said. “Take them out.”

[quote] In their stead, Trump spoke of taking in immigrants from great European countries like Norway, and also from Asian countries, since they could help America economically.

r77 many Americans agree with those statements.

R78, I didn’t say that I disagreed. I’m just thinking the statements show a bit where he’s coming from.

Tough shit OP.

Except R64 like so many bits of lore it’s total bullshit. Justice Roberts changed his vote on the New Deal case in December 1936, two months before FDR announced his court packing scheme. However, Justice Stone was seriously ill the day of oral arguments and the justices decided to wait until he returned to the Court to announce their decision. This months-long delay made it look as if it was a reaction to the court packing plan, but it wasn’t. The change in Justice Roberts was influenced by FDR’s historic landslide in Nov 36. It had nothing to do with court packing. There was never really any “switch in time to save nine.”

R68 Did I say there were only two choices, safe abortions or back alley? No, I did not. Of course contraceptives should be easy to get. Young people need to be better educated about sex as well as how to avoid pregnancy and STDs.

However, many conservatives continually try to defund Planned Parenthood. Abortions are a small part of PP's services, they perform health care for women and men as well as offer contraception. Many conservatives also strongly object to sex education being taught in schools and some don't want to pay for contraception as part of their company health plans.

My point was that banning abortion will not stop abortions, it never has. It will only make then unsafe for women who get them illegally. Adoptions aren't going away either. That's what choice is all about, making decisions for one's own individual life. And again, poor women will be affected the most, rich women will always have more options.

A reader in a related article in today's New York Times opined that the Dems should've persuaded Ginsberg to retire before she became ever more ill so that a more preferred replacement could've been recommended, blah blah. I say that if the Dems don't like the fact that a 4-years-in-office Repub President has the right to nominate someone conservative who he wants during any time during his Presidency up to the national election, then more Dems should do this November what more of them should've done back in 2016, in place of just rioting, protesting and looting then and in 2020 -- that is, talk their walk and get up and out and vote, and vote Democratic, come this November.

There is already a black person on the Supreme Court. That makes the court approximately 11% black. Black people make approximately 13% of the US population, so the Court is already racially balanced. Those claiming it is not representative of the population are wrong.

Clarence Thomas is a BINO

Clarence Thomas is a black whose decisions negatively impact....blacks.

Fascinating shit, r81. Thanks for that.

This is why I love Datalounge.

OP might have just woke up from the coma.

Being White is the least of her problems.

Uhhh don't you think it has to do with the distribution of people who become lawyers??? And ultimately judges??

I'm sure Black and Latino (and Trans) people UndER index on going to law school, but simple math and statistics are usually too complex for people like OP.

Fuck you, OP.

The day stop associating "representation" with color is the day this nation takes a step forward. You're the racist you pretend to loathe.

The point with this nomination is that it has nothing to do with race or sex. It's a bloody radical lunatic cunt nominated by a maniac.

Focus on that, schmuck.

Thank you, R81. My point in bringing up the Switch in Time legend was to show r55 that it is not difficult for a president to pack the court. The reason it didn’t happen under FDR was not due to any procedural roadblocks.

Are you aware Hillary is not President OP? What a stupid question to post here with Trump in the White House.

NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE until a disabled lesbian of color is represented on the Supreme Court!!!

I heard her and her family were giving Q signs at the press conference. Did anyone else?

[quote] NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE until a disabled lesbian of color is represented on the Supreme Court!!!

Why a lesbian?!! We want a gay man! Or trans!

That’s LITERAL VIOLENCE.

We need a radical left wing person in there to shake things up, give the right something to lose sleep over. I think AOC would do the trick.

Marsha Johnson for Chief Justice!!

She’s FULL BLOWN Q

Uncle Joe's got other ideas here. No worries;)

Put Pete on the Supreme court, he's smart enough, young enough and there is nothing in the constitution that requires you to be a lawyer or even have experience as a judge. Just saying. And he would actually be good at it, not just symbolic.

“Q isn’t for Queer anymore, goddamn it!!!”

[quote] All of the Republicans are Catholics.

That’s a nod to the Catholic voters the GOP picked up after Roe v Wade in 1973. Catholics were solid democrats until Roe v Wade. Priests & nuns immediately started banging the anti-abortion drum as soon as RvW was made law. I remember it at the time. I was a senior in high school & the school had been very liberal until then. All of a sudden we were bombarded with 4 color brochures about abortion & made to watch anti-abortion films in the auditorium. I thought “How did they get this stuff so fast?” It was pretty obvious this stuff had been ready to print the minute the law went through, which meant it had been planned in advance. Who planned it? Who financed it?

Why, the GOP, that’s who.

[quote] You would think that this day in age there would be more of a representation of the country on the court.

Right? It’s almost as if they comprise 70% of the population!

White heterosexual women got us into this mess in 2016 and now they will get fucked over by their own actions (we will too). Actions = consequences.

oh noes, what shall we do?

All the Karens and House Fraus are going to love this judge becuase she looks like them. It's going to take years to sink ink all the shit they opened the doors to. By then they wont blame themselves they will blame the court.

Yet it's the fault of the Senate and Trump, R106.

Women don’t count for diversity points?

[quote] Put Pete on the Supreme court, he's smart enough, young enough and there is nothing in the constitution that requires you to be a lawyer or even have experience as a judge. Just saying. And he would actually be good at it, not just symbolic.

Interesting r100. You are correct that a law degree is not necessary for appointment to the USSC. But Pete is a talented politician, a people person. He's really good in that role and he thrives in it. We need him in the public eye, doing what he does best.

People tend to gravitate towards the things that suit their talents and proclivities. Pete is certainly talented enough to be a justice, but would he enjoy it?

We need him where he is now.

A propos of nothing, what is the justification for Supreme Court appointments being lifetime appointments?

It seems to me it might draw some of the sting from the issue and make each new confirmation process a little less absurd if judges were appointed only to, say, non-renewable 10- or 15- year terms? That'd be a way to diversify it still further, too.

The lifetime appointment thing has to go. When the lifetime appointment rule was made, people were lucky if they lived past 50. It's a whole different world now.

We absolutely need more gay men in the government. We are utterly unrepresented.

The lifetime appointment thing is designed so that Justices are not influenced by outside factors and can render a judgment free of political influences. What if Coney Barrett, who is 48, was only appointed to a 10 year term? In ten years she’s still going to want to work in some capacity. She’s now going to render Supreme Court decisions based on what type of employment she wants to get in the future. I don’t think that’s a great idea.

But on the other hand we have them hanging on until they're 110 even though the whole world has changed and their opinions are out of date.

It’s sad that the qualifications of nominees are far down the list behind race, religiosity, and how many votes they’ll garner for the POTUS who nominates them.

A lot of people screaming the loudest have zero clue as to what they’re advocating not do they understand the history of the Supreme Court. Some of the biggest liberals of the court have been Republican appointees. Short of that, many became swing votes instead of the conservative wet dreams they promised on paper. Souter, Kennedy, Stevens, Blackmun. Roberts turned out to be moderate and votes with liberal justices too often for Republicans to be happy these days. Even Gorsuch who was picked by orange asshole has turned out to not be fanatical ideologue.

We’re now making the SC justices into saintly celebrities or cultural warriors because it’s what our society does so well. I wouldn’t be opposed to a moderate nominee who has good credentials and is not an extremist on either sides of the political spectrum.

Why not have a mandatory retirement at age 75 and also prohibit retired SC justices from working in the federal judiciary in any capacity? If they want to stay on the bench after 75 they could do it at the state level or lower. I doubt any would do that though as it’d be rather déclassé.

He would suck, R100. Just like he sucked as mayor and is parading around now as a one-year appointed Notre Dame research fellow. Gives him plenty of time to bore people silly.

[quote]We’re now making the SC justices into saintly celebrities or cultural warriors because it’s what our society does so well.

In America you're nothing and nobody unless you're a media star and you're trending. It's the only thing that matters.

“WHAT HAVE THEY DONE TO HER E-Y-E-S???”

R110, the “justification” is that it’s in the Constitution. If federal judges were appointed for limited terms, all the Senate would ever do is fight over appointments to the bench.

So only make the Supreme Court Justices have a limited term. It can be a nice long one and they can get a big pension afterwards so they don't need to go cap in hand to Exxon Mobil.

One other advantage would be that it would be more possible to appoint someone in their 60s or even 70s to Supreme Court Judge. Following recent nominations there's been a sense that out of your 50s and you're too old for the Supreme Court, since Presidents tend to want to get as many years out of each appointment as possible. It's perverse considering that judge is the one job where years of accumulated wisdom ought to be valued.

On a side note, I wonder how crazy a women with 7 children has to be to want this job. Not to mention, is a woman who has gone through all the hormonal ups and downs of that many pregnancies ok? Can she withstand? Just think of her bones and vitamins. Crazy!

At 48 she might squeeze out a late in life baby and be the first pregnant Supreme Court Justice. She doesn’t believe in birth control so every time her husband fucks her it’s a crapshoot.

Some of her kids are adopted and the youngest one has Down’s Syndrome. I don’t think she’ll be having anymore.

Religious fundies are the only people who are still having Downs kids.

In their eyes, they believe they are being progressive and diverse by nominating a woman.

[quote] Some of her kids are adopted and the youngest one has Down’s Syndrome. I don’t think she’ll be having anymore.

Only Jeebus gets to decide that. And if he wants her with a bun in the oven, ain’t nothin’ could be done.

A propos of keeping your dirty mitts off of our Constitution, we’ll sort it out ourselves, “Concerned European” R110.

Sweetheart at R128, you can't tell how much excitement and pride I feel within me right now as I prepare for the next few months spent watching your determined efforts. You can do it, I truly believe in you!

Thanks ever so, sweetheart R129.

Did anyone catch on Saturday that Trump said she had good genes?

I think he meant good jeans, knowing him.

R123 - what are you talking about? My late partner was an OBGYN and even after 36 it gets harder for most women. He rarely had anyone over 40, much less 48! By then he had patients coming in with menopause, not even perimenopause.

And I don't even care if she is younger or pregnant. What I do care about are her politics. Hell, my sister was pregnant and off work and, because of me, started educating herself about gay adoption and rights and was outraged at countries that deny gay couples the right to adopt.

As an unrelated side note, I would've loved to see Michelle have a baby in the White House...just imagine the Christian conservatives..."a blessing...but blacks fucked in the Lincoln bedroom." Cognitive dissonance at it's finest.

Besides Roe v. Wade and marriage equality, they could overturn Brown vs. Board Ed., The Civil Rights act, Voting act even Loving vs Virginia.

[quote] and even after 36 it gets harder for most women.

Not for me.

Then again, I’m a gay man, so....

He doesn't want minorities as judges, except Asians, I think because he golfs with them and has a crush on Kim Jong Un.

R133 then why is it legal to marry a woman over 36?????? I bet it is mainly gay men like macron marrying these infertile hags.

R135 a little morality won't hurt America. Decadence has to end. We need to sober up and start competing against China and that means an all white population