Why? What if that race or gender contributes a valuable viewpoint that makes the court a stronger and more fair institution? For the same reason, I think Biden should exclude Harvard/Yale Law School nominees from this pick - everyone on the current court is from those schools. Having someone who's life experience is different has value - I believe one of Trump's potential picks was from Michigan law school or something and had a much more blue collar background, and I remember at the time being hopeful they might pick him for the same reason. The court is strongest when its members can understand the practical effects of their decisions, and having people with diverse backgrounds and experiences enhances that.
Curious... what are your thoughts on Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett? Were they nominated for partisan reasons? And do you think they lean left or right?
From Axios... https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-justices-ideology-52ed3cad-fcff-4467-a336-8bec2e6e36d4.html
If I'm an alien from Mars and I just heard of this (looking at this in isolation and without any other knowledge or consideration), I would come to that conclusion. In any given nomination, there is a large pool of well-qualified candidates for the high court. But women and non-whites until recently were excluded. A politician decides that it's not only good politics, but it's the right thing to do, to 'undo' all the unfairness for the past 230 years. It's not a preference for race or sex, but for political gain and fairness, and it is following presidential precedence. That would be a demonstration of fairness not racist or sexist. In fact, one can also argue, looking at the history and larger set, that continuing to not pick a black woman is continuing an institution (office of the president) of sexism and racism. Reagan was the first to change it and several presidents since have made statements of exclusions. I don't think we should judge those statements in isolation, but the larger context and that include what the President has said that might or might not be racists and sexists. Coming to a conclusion based on very selective isolation is analogous to a tweet instead of a book.
What current justices said about abortion during their confirmation hearings: Gorusch: Then “It seems to me very important that we abide [by] our standards of review and we do not pick and choose the areas of law to start abandoning our standards of review. … And I do not care if the case is about abortion or widgets or anything else.” Now “If, hypothetically, the Court were to extend the undue burden standard to regulations prior to viability, would that be workable or would that not be workable in your view?” “If this Court will reject the viability line, do you see any other intelligible principle that the Court could choose?” Kavanaugh: Then “One of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.” “Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed Roe and did so by considering the stare decisis factors. So Casey now becomes a precedent on precedent. It is not as if it is just a run of the mill case that was decided and never been reconsidered.” Now “History helps think about stare decisis, as I’ve looked at it, and the history of how the court’s applied stare decisis, and when you really dig into it, the history tells a somewhat different story, I think than is sometimes assumed. If you think about some of the most important cases, the most consequential cases in this Court’s history, there’s a string of them where the cases overruled precedent.” “When you have those two interests at stake and both are important, as you acknowledge, why should this Court be the arbiter, rather than Congress, the state legislatures, state supreme courts, the people being able to resolve this?” Barrett: Then “What I will commit is that I will obey all the rules of stare decisis. That if a question comes up before me about whether Casey or any other case should be overruled, that I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors. I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I’ll follow the law. “I don’t have an agenda to overturn Casey. I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.” Now “I think a lot of the colloquy you’ve had with all of us has been about the benefits of stare decisis, which I don’t think anyone disputes. And of course no one can dispute, because it's part of our stare decisis doctrine, that it’s not an inexorable command and that there are some circumstances in which overruling is possible.” https://www.politico.com/news/2021/12/05/supreme-court-justices-abortion-comments-523763
i don’t speculate on previous presidents’ reasoning for nominating SC judges. But SC judges should always be chosen based on their qualifications and they should not lean left or right. “Do you think they lean left or right?” I think some of the SC judges lean left, and some lean right, and none of them should.
This is why the above rating of slightly right of center for the conservatives judges is an absolutely ****ing joke.
Please show me where women and non-whites were openly excluded from SC consideration. Which president said, “I will only consider candidates who are white and male”? To do so is racist and sexist. ….and that’s exactly what Biden is doing. If Reagan only considered women, he was sexist….by definition.
They were excluded. Actions means more than words. I take that you consider all affirmative actions as racist or sexist?
How convenient... you think only the current President should be held to this standard (now that its a Democrat), and now that the court has an overwhelmingly conservative bias, since the previous president was able to nominate three conservative justices that rules as a block with the other three conservative justices (for the most part).
Or maybe, just maybe, Reagan believed that the ultimate court in the land should have a member that saw things through the eyes of half the country's population...
An SC judge needs to be able to have a deep understanding of the law and how it applies to ALL people of the USA. An SC judge should not need to be female to understand how the law applies to females. An SC judge should not need to be non-white to understand how the law applies to all Americans. We’re talking about the most elite positions in the judicial branch of our government. These people must not be swayed by their own skin color, gender, or cultural experiences. They must consider ALL skin colors, cultures, and genders without any bias. If they do otherwise, they are not qualified to be an SC Justice.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but I don't think there is language in the constitution that prevents the government from forcing citizens to get a vaccine.
There is a HUGE difference between assuming that a previous president had racist or sexist motivations for their SC nominations , and a president openly and explicitly being racist and sexist in their considerations, as President Biden is.
The current supreme court does not appear to (my own personal opinion, but one that is probably shared by a very large percentage of Americans). But again, I believe the supreme court, the highest court in the land, should better reflect the increasingly diverse citizenship their rulings directly impact (just as I believe the executive branch and congress should). In the past only white men wrote the laws, ruled on the laws, and were allowed to vote on the laws. Any sentient person would say that was clearly wrong. Would you?
You keep repeating the same claim that Biden is racist. No one here but trump supporters believe that and it only weakens any argument that you are trying to present. But you be you...
