Replacement SCOTUS Justice no males and no whites need apply

[martybegan]

His only requirement was that they be white and overrule Roe v Wade

He said no such thing, he required no such thing.

Biden has said he would nominate a black woman, how is that not discrimination?

 

[HappyJoy]

He said no such thing, he required no such thing.

Biden has said he would nominate a black woman, how is that not discrimination?

How is only having two black justices in our history not discrimination?

Our SC should reflect more than just white people. Thanks to mostly Democrats that is happening.

 

[Leo123]

You're entitled to your opinion but it's not my fault you are wrong. Unless you can trawl through every Republican policy and prove me wrong, you should refrain from making an idiot of yourself.

You can't prove I'm wrong so you come here prattling on. Show me 1 Republican policy that is racist. Stop deflecting.

 

[martybegan]

How is only having a single black justice in our history not discrimination?

Our SC should reflect more than just white people. Thanks to mostly Democrats that is happening.

There were two so far, or are you not counting Thomas?

Always amazes me that the supposedly non-racist people are the ones always bringing up and determining things by race.

 

[Couchpotato]

Keep on point. We will have our 164th nomination soon and it will make one black women in that group. Please explain how this is a discriminatory act.

It’s only discriminatory if they are chosen because they are a black woman and anyone who was not a black woman was disqualified because of it.

 

[HappyJoy]

There were two so far, or are you not counting Thomas?

Always amazes me that the supposedly non-racist people are the ones always bringing up and determining things by race.

Yeah, I already corrected my post. Point stands.

There is a long, long history of other ethnicities not being represented on the court due to their race and whitey Mcwhities now get their panties in a bunch? Crazy.

 

[Leo123]

159 nominations and 0 black women. If the next one is a black women then it is somehow discriminating against the 150 white men nominated?

So what? Since when is skin color a prerequisite for a SCOTUS nomination? Point that out in the Constitution.

 

[HappyJoy]

So what? Since when is skin color a prerequisite for a SCOTUS nomination? Point that out in the Constitution.

Since forever.

What does the Constitution have to do with it?

 

[Couchpotato]

How is only having two black justices in our history not discrimination?

Our SC should reflect more than just white people. Thanks to mostly Democrats that is happening.

? Two minority justices one nominated by a Republican one a Democrat.

The last Justice nominated by a Democrat was an old white guy…..

 

[FA_Q2]

159 nominations and 0 black women. If the next one is a black women then it is somehow discriminating against the 150 white men nominated?

Oh, are there only white men and black women in this nation.

No Asians? No American Indians? Pacific Islanders?

Just white men or black women.

The lie that the democrats give one rats ass about POC. It is all about pandering and who cares if that pandering requires an explicitly racist act. It is pathetic that you cannot see how applying more racism is not an answer to reducing racism.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, I already corrected my post. Point stands.

There is a long, long history of other ethnicities not being represented on the court due to their race and whitey Mcwhities now get their panties in a bunch? Crazy.

There is a long long history of Europeans being the only ones in power. And right now on the SC the split for blacks being appointed is 50/50 repub/Dems, 3 to 2 women dems/republican, and 100% so far Hispanic dems.

You really don't see the difference between choosing someone out of a multiracial spectrum vs. choosing someone simply because of their race and sex?

 

[HappyJoy]

? Two minority justices one nominated by a Republican one a Democrat.

You should probably expand your definition of minority.

The last Justice nominated by a Democrat was an old white guy…..

What's wrong with that? He also put a Hispanic woman and a Jewish woman so then he nominated a white guy. Seems pretty diverse to me.

 

[HappyJoy]

There is a long long history of Europeans being the only ones in power. And right now on the SC the split for blacks being appointed is 50/50 repub/Dems, 3 to 2 women dems/republican, and 100% so far Hispanic dems.

Neat. What's your point?

You really don't see the difference between choosing someone out of a multiracial spectrum vs. choosing someone simply because of their race and sex?

Reagan did it. Did you complain then?

 

[martybegan]

Neat. What's your point?



Reagan did it. Did you complain then?

My point is for someone so concerned with race you seem ignorant of the actual numbers.

Reagan didn't say he was going to ONLY look at women, he picked one out of a field of candidates based on merit, not race and sex.

 

[HappyJoy]

My point is for someone so concerned with race you seem ignorant of the actual numbers.

I'm well aware that there has never been a black woman on the court and blacks in general (as well as others) have been underrepresented.

Reagan didn't say he was going to ONLY look at women, he picked one out of a field of candidates based on merit, not race and sex.

Yes, he did. It was a campaign promise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/10/15/reagan-pledges-he-would-name-a-woman-to-the-supreme-court/844817dc-27aa-4f5d-8e4f-0ab3a5e76865/

EDIT: And not just the Supreme Court either.

"It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists," Reagan said in a prepared statement to a news conference here. "I will also seek out women to appoint to other federal courts in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench."​

 

[Dr Grump]

Yeah. It is right. A conservative Justice is typically a strict constructionist. I thought you didn’t care about the political affiliation….

Are they? Your politics is different from ours. Of course I care about political affiliation. That is my point.

 

[martybegan]

I'm well aware that there has never been a black woman on the court and blacks in general (as well as others) have been underrepresented.

Yes, he did. It was a campaign promise.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/10/15/reagan-pledges-he-would-name-a-woman-to-the-supreme-court/844817dc-27aa-4f5d-8e4f-0ab3a5e76865/

EDIT: And not just the Supreme Court either.

"It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists," Reagan said in a prepared statement to a news conference here. "I will also seek out women to appoint to other federal courts in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench."​

Still wrong, and he said "one of the first" not in a given pick.

But again, not saying he wouldn't pick anyone else.

 

[Couchpotato]

Are they? Your politics is different from ours. Of course I care about political affiliation. That is my point.

Yes they are. Political affiliation of judges i mean

 

[Dr Grump]

He nominated Garland they just didn’t have the vote. Had they he probably doesn’t get confirmed. How are those two scenarios different? The outcome is the same

Meh. Maybe you like a country where the politicians only care about themselves and have little or no accountability. I don't.

 

[HappyJoy]

Still wrong, and he said "one of the first" not in a given pick.

But again, not saying he wouldn't pick anyone else.

He specifically made it a point that he would favor a woman on the supreme court and women in general for federal judgeships.

"It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists," Reagan said in a prepared statement to a news conference here. "I will also seek out women to appoint to other federal courts in an effort to bring about a better balance on the federal bench."​

​

There is literally zero sunshine between what Biden promised and what Reagan promised except for specifically wanting to appoint a black woman. And your only upset about one of them? Why?