Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring

[JayMysteri0]

I want to take in a moment to soak in what I am hoping is the sudden discomfort musco is feeling. A supreme court judge specifically retired early so as to avoid anymore of musco's hypocritical bullshit with his seat. Also because Biden will get his choice & stick with his promise of nominating a Black ( Oh I pray she calls Uncle Thom on his bullshit ) woman, this seems more fitting...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/25/mcconnells-flub-black-voters-misstated-facts-too/

McConnell stepped in it the other day, making remarks during the debate over new state voting laws that were roundly criticized for suggesting that Black voters were not Americans. He later clarified that he had inadvertently failed to include the word “all” before “Americans.”

We’re more interested in McConnell’s factual dexterity than his verbal dexterity. His statement plays sleight of hand with the facts.

On the face of it, his comment would appear only slightly overstated. A McConnell spokesman directed us to census data showing that Black turnout was relatively close to overall turnout in recent elections. That’s not “just as high” as McConnell claimed, but maybe it’s close enough for government work?

• 2020: Total turnout 66.8 percent, Black turnout 62.6 percent
• 2018: Total turnout 53.4 percent, Black turnout 51.5 percent
• 2016: Total turnout 61.4 percent, Black turnout 59.4 percent
• 2014: Total turnout 41.9 percent, Black turnout 39.7 percent

In the most recent presidential election, the gap was about four percentage points, but it was closer in the three previous election cycles.

But here’s the trick McConnell is playing. He’s comparing Black turnout to overall turnout. These are not comparable data sets.

Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political scientist who analyses census data on voter turnout, said it is more appropriate to measure Black turnout against White turnout.

“This statement is false, according to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey Voting and Registration Supplement,” McDonald wrote in an email. “Non-Hispanic African Americans currently have lower turnout rates than non-Hispanic Whites in the 2020 and 2016 elections.”

In 2020, for instance, 72.6 percent of non-Hispanic White Americans voted, compared with 65.6 percent of non-Hispanic Black Americans — a gap of seven percentage points. In 2016, the gap was 4.8 percentage points.

That trend is consistent dating to 1986, according to McDonald’s analysis, with only two exceptions — the presidential election years of 2008 and 2012. Those are the years that Barack Obama, the United States’ first Black president, was on the ballot.

McConnell’s spokesman responded with a curveball. “This whole debate is in the context of the Voting Rights Act, looking at the turnout in some of the former preclearance states is instructive,” he said, referring to a section of the law that had prevented Southern states from making voting changes without preapproval from the attorney general or a court ruling. Recent Supreme Court rulings, such as Shelby County v. Holder in 2013, have gutted that section of the law.

Racist & loose with facts, say it ain't so musco.

May not be Americans ( all or not ) to mitch, but they will be on the supreme court.

Unless, musco wants to fight over this?

That's NOT going to be a good look.

 

[Eric]

Republicans: "Democrats are making it about skin color!"

Also Republicans' last three nominees:

 

[ronntaylor]

Republicans: "Democrats are making it about skin color!"

Also Republicans' last three nominees:

View attachment 11344

In October 1980 while campaigning Ronald Reagan promised to name the first woman to the Supreme Court if elected. Everyone knew damn well that it was going to be a white woman.

When George W. Bush named Clarence Thomas to fill the seat after Thurgood Marshall's retirement from the Supremes, everyone knew damn well that he was purposefully naming a Black justice to replace a retiring Black justice.

The Supreme Court has been overwhelming white, and overwhelmingly male. Time to make history. Every possible nominee talked about since Biden's pledge is well qualified. A couple have garnered bipartisan votes by the current Senate for Circuit Court appointments. Any pushback by the GOP is bullshit covered racism.

I'm going with Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson as the likely choice. Although Judge J. Michele Childs wouldn't surprise me as Clyburn feels he has a chit to call in.

 

[Renzatic]

Republicans: "Democrats are making it about skin color!"

Also Republicans' last three nominees:

View attachment 11344

Well, yeah. They look like all the people we've traditionally put on the bench. The Democrats are making it about race by calling us out on it.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Biden will get his choice & stick with his promise of nominating a Black ( Oh I pray she calls Uncle Thom on his bullshit ) woman,

I know this is highly cynical, but I have no doubt he’ll keep this promise while every other promise is systematically being tossed in the circular file. Assuming she does get confirmed, the establishment left will endlessly wax poetic about what an epic win this is for equality and diversity attempting to bury the fact that they didn’t pass any way more impactful legislation in regards to equality, including voting rights. The makeup of the supreme court is way more of an obsession of the right than those on the left.

Similarly the masochistic racist contingent on the right will do gold star mental gymnastics trying to explain their objections as anything other then what they actually are.

Meanwhile, no major issues got solved.

 

[lizkat]

I know this is highly cynical, but I have no doubt he’ll keep this promise while every other promise is systematically being tossed in the circular file. Assuming she does get confirmed, the establishment left will endlessly wax poetic about what an epic win this is for equality and diversity attempting to bury the fact that they didn’t pass any way more impactful legislation in regards to equality, including voting rights. The makeup of the supreme court is way more of an obsession of the right than those on the left.

Similarly the masochistic racist contingent on the right will do gold star mental gymnastics trying to explain their objections as anything other then what they actually are.

Meanwhile, no major issues got solved.

Wait, what? Biden got 40 federal judge nominations confirmed in 2021. That is more than any other president since Reagan managed to get confirmations on in a first year in office.

Democrats whined about the far right, quite young and sometimes unqualified judges McConnell jammed through while Trump was in office, so we can hardly dismiss all the improvements made in 2021 by Biden. The federal judiciary is not dead yet. It still very much matters to our democracy.

As far as the Republicans not even ramped-up commentary on Biden's high court pick-to-be, nothing would surprise me. They didn't care what the Ds thought when the last three R picks were made, nor before that when denying Garland even a hearing. So.. who cares. What goes around comes around.

Well, yeah. They look like all the people we've traditionally put on the bench. The Democrats are making it about race by calling us out on it.

The Republican political leadership are making it about race because it's Thursday. Check back tomorrow and only thing different will be that it's Friday. They don't make any bones about it any more except when trotting out a carefully selected token for any situation in which a Republican public official (like McConnell) finds himself criticized for lack of diversity in hiring, etc.

Past confirmation of Biden's Supreme Court pick, the Republicans will likely reach for their playbooks on Michelle Obama. Biden's pick will be not only black but female, so breathing while uppity, "the same as" a certain former first lady, but sitting on the high court bench and having more authority. Awesome... unless you think women should stay home and mind kids and laundry.

Whoever Biden's nominee is, she'll be ready to take to task anew any who ever thought the VRA could stand a haircut just because the Rs' demographics are showing signs of being unable to take the heat of Americans' political leanings in free and fair federal elections.

I remember when American women could not get credit in their own names, nor sell property without approval of a male guardian. When my mother was born, her mother could not vote. When my grandmother was a child, shop windows advertising for help usually specified "Male clerk wanted" but even when wanting female shop assistants also often advised "Irish need not apply." And if you were black and saw that admonition, you'd know to keep on walking. There was work for you somewhere, but not there in a city's high shopping districts or on the main streets of small towns.

The black woman who now lands on our highest court and makes the ratio of women to men 4:5 --along with Kagan, Sotomayor and Barrett-- will have not only American legal and judicial history but her own and ancestral memories of what it is to have been held unequal before the law in America despite the ideals of our Constitution.

So it's not just about race but also about gender.

Double whammy there for the Republicans. Race and gender. If they'd come around to reading the Constitution with an open mind, they could get back to devising a platform that would once again attract voters past a dwindling base that they need to expand by appealing to more independents.

 

[ouimetnick]

If you put up a qualified candidate, that goes through the committee. Why would they not vote for them?

Because they're republicans.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I seriously don’t know how you (meant as the general population) people can think so much in terms of race or gender. My reactions at the resignation were all about hoping for some interesting bench history.

Seriously, I must be so out of touch that I probably need to just buy a small ranch and live in seclusion forever.

So fucking depressing what politics has become.

 

[Deleted member 215]

I know this is highly cynical, but I have no doubt he’ll keep this promise while every other promise is systematically being tossed in the circular file. Assuming she does get confirmed, the establishment left will endlessly wax poetic about what an epic win this is for equality and diversity attempting to bury the fact that they didn’t pass any way more impactful legislation in regards to equality, including voting rights. The makeup of the supreme court is way more of an obsession of the right than those on the left.

Similarly the masochistic racist contingent on the right will do gold star mental gymnastics trying to explain their objections as anything other then what they actually are.

Meanwhile, no major issues got solved.

Basically, yes. The Democrats pay lip service to identity politics and diversity to distract from the fact that at their core they're not that much different from Republicans. I'm reminded of that cartoon that shows two bomb-dropping drones: one unmarked (the Republican version) and one with a BLM and pride flag on it (the Democrat version).

 

[SuperMatt]

I seriously don’t know how you (meant as the general population) people can think so much in terms of race or gender. My reactions at the resignation were all about hoping for some interesting bench history.

Seriously, I must be so out of touch that I probably need to just buy a small ranch and live in seclusion forever.

So fucking depressing what politics has become.

Has become? We used to subject everybody with dark skin to forced slavery. When that was over, they were denied the vote, jobs, entry to certain restaurants, banks. stores, bathrooms or even water fountains, and then finally in the late 20th century things started moving in a better direction. But it is NOW that we are too focused on race and gender?

Please tell me what year we can go back to where race or gender was less of a factor than it is now. If things were better before, we wouldn’t NEED to discuss having the FIRST black woman as a Supreme Court justice, nearly 250 years into the official existence of the United States of America.

The fact that more women and racial minorities are being given opportunities NOW means that in 100 years, we might not have to discuss opportunities based on race and gender in anything other than a historical context.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Wait, what? Biden got 40 federal judge nominations confirmed in 2021. That is more than any other president since Reagan managed to get confirmations on in a first year in office.

Democrats whined about the far right, quite young and sometimes unqualified judges McConnell jammed through while Trump was in office, so we can hardly dismiss all the improvements made in 2021 by Biden. The federal judiciary is not dead yet. It still very much matters to our democracy.

As far as the Republicans not even ramped-up commentary on Biden's high court pick-to-be, nothing would surprise me. They didn't care what the Ds thought when the last three R picks were made, nor before that when denying Garland even a hearing. So.. who cares. What goes around comes around.



The Republican political leadership are making it about race because it's Thursday. Check back tomorrow and only thing different will be that it's Friday. They don't make any bones about it any more except when trotting out a carefully selected token for any situation in which a Republican public official (like McConnell) finds himself criticized for lack of diversity in hiring, etc.

Past confirmation of Biden's Supreme Court pick, the Republicans will likely reach for their playbooks on Michelle Obama. Biden's pick will be not only black but female, so breathing while uppity, "the same as" a certain former first lady, but sitting on the high court bench and having more authority. Awesome... unless you think women should stay home and mind kids and laundry.

Whoever Biden's nominee is, she'll be ready to take to task anew any who ever thought the VRA could stand a haircut just because the Rs' demographics are showing signs of being unable to take the heat of Americans' political leanings in free and fair federal elections.

I remember when American women could not get credit in their own names, nor sell property without approval of a male guardian. When my mother was born, her mother could not vote. When my grandmother was a child, shop windows advertising for help usually specified "Male clerk wanted" but even when wanting female shop assistants also often advised "Irish need not apply." And if you were black and saw that admonition, you'd know to keep on walking. There was work for you somewhere, but not there in a city's high shopping districts or on the main streets of small towns.

The black woman who now lands on our highest court and makes the ratio of women to men 4:5 --along with Kagan, Sotomayor and Barrett-- will have not only American legal and judicial history but her own and ancestral memories of what it is to have been held unequal before the law in America despite the ideals of our Constitution.

So it's not just about race but also about gender.

Double whammy there for the Republicans. Race and gender. If they'd come around to reading the Constitution with an open mind, they could get back to devising a platform that would once again attract voters past a dwindling base that they need to expand by appealing to more independents.

My comments were specifically about the supreme court because that's what gets all the attention and laser focus. I don't think I know anybody who would bring up lower court appointments in a general conversation. Maybe that's on me. Maybe that's on them. TBH I don't get a lot of heavy deep political discussions IRL, not much beyond mainstream news (left or right) talking points. There are plenty of good reasons to not have political discussions, but for me a lot of times it's because I'm usually 30 layers into the onion while they're still picking at the skin. I don't have much of an interest of returning back to the surface so I can experience first grade with them.

Having said that, I sometimes say things in terms of the biggest possible audience, in both potential appeal and knowledge. Winning a bunch of knife fights isn't going to matter when your opponent drops a nuke on your head.

I just remembered a comedic rallying cry I heard making fun of the establishment left that cracked me up.

Establishment Politician: "What do we want?!"

Establishment Crowd: "Incrementalism!"

EP: "When do we want it?!"

EC: "Eventually!"

 

[ronntaylor]

Biden just needs to ignore the typical whining from so-called progressives. He's gotten the most diverse, inclusive group of judges confirmed in history. He's nominated and gotten more Black women confirmed to circuit courts than all of his predecessors combined. The Supreme Court pick-to-come is just icing on the big fucking cake. That's getting shit done. Especially when court cases wind up before all these judges. Between the Infrastructure bill and the judicial appointments, he's on track to exceed Mango's term and what Barack did at the same point in either term.

 

[lizkat]

Has become? We used to subject everybody with dark skin to forced slavery. When that was over, they were denied the vote, jobs, entry to certain restaurants, banks. stores, bathrooms or even water fountains, and then finally in the late 20th century things started moving in a better direction. But it is NOW that we are too focused on race and gender?

Please tell me what year we can go back to where race or gender was less of a factor than it is now. If things were better before, we wouldn’t NEED to discuss having the FIRST black woman as a Supreme Court justice, nearly 250 years into the official existence of the United States of America.

The fact that more women and racial minorities are being given opportunities NOW means that in 100 years, we might not have to discuss opportunities based on race and gender in anything other than a historical context.

True but it can be depressing that apparently we have to keep doing civil rights recognition and reinforcement all over again all the while because otherwise the Rs might run out of resentments to distract us from the fact that their godblasted tax cuts only trickle down as far as their accountants' list of new tax sheltering legislation.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Has become? We used to subject everybody with dark skin to forced slavery. When that was over, they were denied the vote, jobs, entry to certain restaurants, banks. stores, bathrooms or even water fountains, and then finally in the late 20th century things started moving in a better direction. But it is NOW that we are too focused on race and gender?

Please tell me what year we can go back to where race or gender was less of a factor than it is now. If things were better before, we wouldn’t NEED to discuss having the FIRST black woman as a Supreme Court justice, nearly 250 years into the official existence of the United States of America.

The fact that more women and racial minorities are being given opportunities NOW means that in 100 years, we might not have to discuss opportunities based on race and gender in anything other than a historical context.

I am not saying or even making “good ‘ol times” were good. No, they were shitty and racism or some form of discrimination was everywhere. But, at least it was codified, declared, and very obvious. No one was pretending to be inclusive all while thinking about skin for a few votes. Do I want to go back to then? No.

My complaint is that now, in 2022 and after 8 years with a black President and other cool stuff, we’re still at the point in which race is the most important factor while at the same time there is the “oh no we don’t look at race we’re inclusive” bullshit argument. The President went on tv saying that he will pick a judge (which means he has no idea who) but that it will be a she and will be black. That’s admission that the focus is on race an gender (something that will weigh on the candidate forever.) Hence my disgust.

Politics, especially in domestic matters, in my opinion should be clear. And nominations should not be made in order to make “history” just to grab a few votes (let me be clear, I do think that Biden will pick an excellent person that might be a good choice for the scouts).

 

[ronntaylor]

I am not saying or even making “good ‘ol times” were good. No, they were shitty and racism or some form of discrimination was everywhere. But, at least it was codified, declared, and very obvious. No one was pretending to be inclusive all while thinking about skin for a few votes. Do I want to go back to then? No.

My complaint is that now, in 2022 and after 8 years with a black President and other cool stuff, we’re still at the point in which race is the most important factor while at the same time there is the “oh no we don’t look at race we’re inclusive” bullshit argument. The President went on tv saying that he will pick a judge (which means he has no idea who) but that it will be a she and will be black. That’s admission that the focus is on race an gender (something that will weigh on the candidate forever.) Hence my disgust.

Politics, especially in domestic matters, in my opinion should be clear. And nominations should not be made in order to make “history” just to grab a few votes (let me be clear, I do think that Biden will pick an excellent person that might be a good choice for the scouts).

Whether you realize it or not, this response is pretty much saying "good 'ol times" were good. Racism and insidious forms of racism and sexism are still out there. Mango nominated Coney Barrett because she was a woman. And we all know, those that still support him/supported him/voted for him, and those that would never support him, know that he is a racist. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Reagan pandered to women by promising to name a woman to the Supreme Court if elected in 1980. He kept that promise and nominated a person advocated by a known racist, right-wing extremist. Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't weighted down by that reality.

More than forty years later, and after 232 years of existence, and we've yet to have a Black woman serve on the Supreme Court. And just one other Black person on the court in that time -- and again, he was purposefully chosen as a Black replacement. He tried to downplay race in his nomination. Well, at least till his ass was caught being a predator. Then it was all about "high-class lynching" based on his uppityness. Negro please!

 

[yaxomoxay]

Whether you realize it or not, this response is pretty much saying "good 'ol times" were good.

No. It’s not. Don’t put words in my mouth. You’re just attaching to the last sentence of my initial post while ignoring that my complaint is about the focus on race and gender.

. Mango nominated Coney Barrett because she was a woman.

Possibly. He didn’t declare it as Biden did, but even if it were the case it Doesn’t make it right.

More than forty years later, and after 232 years of existence, and we've yet to have a Black woman serve on the Supreme Court.

Sure. It’s a problem? Yes. Do we nominate someone to the scotus with the goal of changing this? No. If it happens - as we all hope - it must be incidental.

Again, it must be me. I just don’t reason going by color, gender, religion, ethnicity on every fucking thing. I guess I am just… unique.

 

[lizkat]

Again, it must be me. I just don’t reason going by color, gender, religion, ethnicity on every fucking thing. I guess I am just… unique.

Well Biden certainly did not invent the politicization of the Supreme Court nomination process.

And... it's sure god clear that when the Republicans put up Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett that they were not putting up people with a "diverse" set of American (or for that matter legal or judicial) experiences. They were putting up Federalist Society vetted conservatives. This is what they have come to.

Why should the Democrats not decide to shift gears now that Biden gets a pick? Why not add a black female? Trump promised to add conservatives, and did it. Biden promised to add a black female and he's doing it.

Yeah it's messed up that it's politics all the way to "the nine" on SCOTUS. So fucking what? Dems can't decline to play the game just because Rs made their picks from known conservatives and now criticize the Ds for what... not picking a white male to replace Breyer? No Dem cares what the Rs think when it's the Dems' turn to make a high court pick. The Rs didn't care what Ds thought when they had the power to choose high court justices.

On race: No one in right mind at this point can seriously consider Clarence Thomas in any way representative of black Americans' experience of life or the law. Yet the Rs didn't decide to add a black colleague to the high court to offset Justice Thomas' ... ideosyncracies.

On gender: The R's pick of Barrett as a "replacement" for RBG was a deliberate slap in the face to even mildly progressive American women.

On accusations of partisanship in the picks: Garland is not some radical leftie. He would have been a reasonable replacement for Scalia. The Rs' outrage and McConnell's refusal to schedule hearings were themselves partisan in the extreme. And c'mon. Six of the nine sitting SCOTUS justices are or were Federalist Society members, dedicated to libertarian or conservative aka "originalist or textualist" takes on the Constitution.

So it's late in the day for the Republicans to get religion about the need for political neutrality in high court picks. Not only have they had a litmus test specifically on Roe v Wade for decades, but it becomes clear that there's also a right wing litmus test, period.

 

[ronntaylor]

No. It’s not. Don’t put words in my mouth. You’re just attaching to the last sentence of my initial post while ignoring that my complaint is about the focus on race and gender.



Possibly. He didn’t declare it as Biden did, but even if it were the case it Doesn’t make it right.



Sure. It’s a problem? Yes. Do we nominate someone to the scotus with the goal of changing this? No. If it happens - as we all hope - it must be incidental.

Again, it must be me. I just don’t reason going by color, gender, religion, ethnicity on every fucking thing. I guess I am just… unique.

I guess it must be you. Because racism is still around, strong as ever. You mentioned "8 years with a black President" (your words, not put in your mouth, just your focus) But I guess you forgot the treatment he received in those eight years as "a black President." Being called a liar while in front of both houses of Congress at the State of the Union address. Being told to go “back home to Kenya or wherever” by a sitting House member. The Senate majority leader arrogantly stating "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." This same Senate majority leader not even giving his Supreme Court nominee the courtesy of confirmation hearings.

When white christian males are the default, any mention of "color, gender, religion, ethnicity" becomes "every fucking thing" I guess.

 

[yaxomoxay]

I guess it must be you. Because racism is still around, strong as ever. You mentioned "8 years with a black President" (your words, not put in your mouth, just your focus) But I guess you forgot the treatment he received in those eight years as "a black President." Being called a liar while in front of both houses of Congress at the State of the Union address. Being told to go “back home to Kenya or wherever” by a sitting House member. The Senate majority leader arrogantly stating "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." This same Senate majority leader not even giving his Supreme Court nominee the courtesy of confirmation hearings.

When white christian males are the default, any mention of "color, gender, religion, ethnicity" becomes "every fucking thing" I guess.

You’re replying to me as if I said, implied, meant, or believed that racism is over. racism is included - and it’s a much worse form - in my rant about always thinking about race.

My comment about the 8 years with a black President is meant as “I hoped we’d be at a much better point by now”.

Again, must be me.

 

[yaxomoxay]

Well Biden certainly did not invent the politicization of the Supreme Court nomination process.

And... it's sure god clear that when the Republicans put up Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett that they were not putting up people with a "diverse" set of American (or for that matter legal or judicial) experiences. They were putting up Federalist Society vetted conservatives. This is what they have come to.

Why should the Democrats not decide to shift gears now that Biden gets a pick? Why not add a black female? Trump promised to add conservatives, and did it. Biden promised to add a black female and he's doing it.

Yeah it's messed up that it's politics all the way to "the nine" on SCOTUS. So fucking what? Dems can't decline to play the game just because Rs made their picks from known conservatives and now criticize the Ds for what... not picking a white male to replace Breyer? No Dem cares what the Rs think when it's the Dems' turn to make a high court pick. The Rs didn't care what Ds thought when they had the power to choose high court justices.

On race: No one in right mind at this point can seriously consider Clarence Thomas in any way representative of black Americans' experience of life or the law. Yet the Rs didn't decide to add a black colleague to the high court to offset Justice Thomas' ... ideosyncracies.

On gender: The R's pick of Barrett as a "replacement" for RBG was a deliberate slap in the face to even mildly progressive American women.

On accusations of partisanship in the picks: Garland is not some radical leftie. He would have been a reasonable replacement for Scalia. The Rs' outrage and McConnell's refusal to schedule hearings were themselves partisan in the extreme. And c'mon. Six of the nine sitting SCOTUS justices are or were Federalist Society members, dedicated to libertarian or conservative aka "originalist or textualist" takes on the Constitution.

So it's late in the day for the Republicans to get religion about the need for political neutrality in high court picks. Not only have they had a litmus test specifically on Roe v Wade for decades, but it becomes clear that there's also a right wing litmus test, period.

I have not mentioned political neutrality. That’s a train that left the station. And yes, it’s another thing that disgusts me.