Again, you are exhibiting a gaping hole in your presentation of SCOTUS rhetoric. Hint: what has been said about reversing Roe v. Wade?
What have I presented other than a sentiment of congratulations to those with a more left leaning political world view that "their side" gets to select the next member of the SCOTUS? And how does dadgum Roe v. Wade factor into your perceptions surrounding the deep meaning as interpreted by you through the handful of sentences I've typed out regarding the breaking news of Beyer's seat coming open?
If you were unironically and unknowingly invoking "correct judicial philosophy" as if it were a left wing thing, my mistake and good luck starting grade school next year.
Hard not to be a lil ironic after the last few years of emotionally partisan driven rhetoric that Supreme court seats are being "stolen", as if Supreme Court seats belong to any one party in the first place. It sucks that Obama did not have a Senate majority in a presidential election year and couldn't get Garland's nomination off the ground. I'm sure if circumstances were the same and Bush tried to nominate someone in 2008 with the Dem majority in the Senate, Dems would have been on the frontlines advocating for a confirmation hearing. It sucks that Hillary Clinton ignored the angst of the working class voters in the mid-west and lost to a reality show host with zero political experience, ultimately costing her party 3 nominations. It also sucks that RGB didn't let a million different cancer diagnoses stop her from retiring before literally dying on the job in her late 80s while there happened to be a Republican POTUS and Senate majority. But sure, playing politics with Supreme Court nominees and each party having overall judicial philosophy preferences for SC nominees is certainly not exclusive to just one political party.
You seem confused as to why "stolen" is invoked. You seem to think it because a seat belongs to a party, and not because a legitimate nominee was never considered due to partisan politics. If the same thing happens again, in that if the senate fails to vote on a nominee until the nominee is nominated by like party, it too will have been stolen.
Literally said that Dems would have done the exact same thing in that scenario. I fully understand what happened and why it happened.
You can literally say. You can fully believe it. But you can't demonstrate it. Which makes it fantasy.
Yea believing a majority of Senate Dems would not have championed a George W. Supreme Court nominee being given a confirmation hearing so that they could ultimately vote on a Republican POTUS nominee with zero chance of being confirmed on the eve of the 2008 election is based on pure fantasy. I just can't concern myself personally with dems successfully failing at playing the game of Supreme Court politics in recent memory. Their political failures are not worth getting worked up over.
There's some hand-wringing about racism by setting out to have a black nominee. If such a nominee is seated, there will be more black justices on the SCOTUS than black head coaches in the NFL. And yet out of 120 justices to date, 2 has been black (01.6%). And today that demographic makes up 12.1% of the population. We ought to be really uncomfortable about that group's current and historic underrepresentation, and anyone worried about "reverse racism" should first think about what an egalitarian society would look like. We're not tipping society, we've been capsized and are trying to get right.
I dont know the qualifications for Scotus but imagine they start building towards that goal as a youth and had family ties to judges, politics, attorneys, etc often, so more of that networking is needed. You have to want to be there too and take whatever route. I have no idea how many have been turned down or didnt want to make a run. Actually outside of ego I'm not sure why anyone would want to.
Country is 12% black. 1/9 = 11% of the SC currently being represented by a black person. 2/9 = would mean 22 % of the SC represented by black people. There's never been an Asian or Native American justice. Why would Dems limit themselves to one specific minority group over the others that can claim inequity? At what point does the skin color of a potential nominee no longer the first thing that is publicly prioritized by an administration when making a monumental decision such as selecting someone who will be on the SC for decades? It's not like the skin color of a judge has any baring on fixing the realities of the past. I just want the most qualified pick available from the pool of candidates that a Democrat administration and Senate will choose from regardless of race and sex. If it's a black women, that is totally fine. But it better be because she is the best choice out there.
When people don't question whether a different skin color can represent them. I don't see why I would assume they wouldn't be. But also, fundamentally, no one person is "the best" for something like this because there are not objective metrics.
Correct, it is fantasy. Because it did not happen. You may truly believe that it would, but all that is is speculation. What has happened is not speculation.
Haha sure whatever. Like I said, the reality of Democrats being politically incompetent when dealing with recent Supreme Court vacancies is something I could care less about. Not the Reps fault that Scalia unexpectedly died of a heart attack in his sleep on the heels of a presidential election with a Republican majority in the Senate. It's not the Reps fault that RGB refused to retire and ended up dying in her late 80s while there happened to be a Republican POTUS and a majority of Senate Republicans. Nor is it the fault of the Reps that Hillary Clinton was a horrific and uninspiring presidential candidate that failed to mobilize the black vote while overseeing the collapse of the Blue Wall that is Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan. All is well though, the "good guys" learned today that they are in charge of the next SCOTUS pick.
But only if they are marketed as having a more progressive judicial philosophy in our intersectional world does skin color actually matter to the modern Dem ecosystem when it comes to determining minority representation. Plenty of people out there who share the same skin color as Clarence Thomas that don't feel represented by him for his crime of being "too conservative" with his judicial rulings. And whatever metric is used, limiting the parameters on who is selected based on a specific race or gender is certainly not "the best" approach.
Victims? Them kicking the ass of Dems politically with the Supreme Court in recent years certainly doesn't make them victims. lol that's funny
I don't know what a progressive judicial philosophy means. Does it mean not [uck fay]ing over future Americans as hard? That seems to be the fundamental philosophy difference. Yes, Clarence Thomas is a true pioneer. I don't think it is ideal, no. But given that out of 120 previous justices, only 2 have been black, it doesn't seem like much of a concern at this point. And it seems entirely possible we are going to get a top tier selection since this isn't something where anyone really is "the best" or "deserves" it. It's a public service position.
