Do you know if any of the names it out so far don’t meet those measurements that you claim are objective? You admit that the justice you consider the best doesn’t meet those objectives also so then do you believe that Biden would nominate any justice that you would consider the best?
this is not entirely true. In epistemology there is a sense of "objectivity" as intersubjective testability or intersubjective agreement. This is what lies behind the overall idea of "qualified judges," in any realm, whether we are judging art, music, food, or science, technologies, or what have you. One could imagine (as someone did earlier in the thread) a panel of objective and impartial evaluators who assess the quality of a judge's written opinions, law review articles, perceived fairness by lawyers who have argued in front of those judges, etc etc etc. These are not necessarily quantitative measures (what I take you were getting at) but qualitative assessments. Again, just because they are qualitative assessments doesn't necessarily mean they aren't objective--if such assessments are widely shared (or even unanimously shared) then that is a sign of their likely objectivity. We make highly reliable and objective qualitative assessments all the time.
I can see a scenario where a couple Democrats may not be on board with Bidens idiocy. Biden now further risks losing credibility if he is faced to choose a non black female by his own party or not getting someone nominated until after the election. And if there is a massive 'red tide' and the nomination gets bounced until after 2024, the Republicans could put yet another conservative judge on the court. He should have kept his mouth shut and stuck with the obvious plan...ensuring the Republicans didn't get another judge in for the next several years. Meanwhile, Breyer is probably feeling a little like Boxer right now.
I doubt Biden is going to face any serious opposition within his own party in the pick. I would it better odds that he might even get a couple of Republicans to support his pick. All of this hand wringing over him pledging to pick a black woman is just that. As said he’s not going to pick Whoopi Goldberg or Serena Williams and hes not going to pick Kamala Harris. He’s most likely going to pick one of the names already floated out there who are judges with not only experience but in a couple of cases already passed senate confirmation
Their LSAT scores are not listed, but Jackson graduated c*m laude from Harvard Law and Kruger without distinction from Yale Law (from what I can gather from their respective wikipedia pages), though both were high ranking editors of legal journals at their respective law schools. Bar scores are not even released to the test taker unless there is a reread, so that is obviously also not available. I think it is unlikely that any President would nominate someone that had the top LSAT, top class rank from an elite law school, (and if they could figure out who it was, top bar score from a state with a tough bar exam). Those people tend to be making a million dollars a year plus as hedge fund managers or something.
Again, he made the statement during his campaign and he won. You seem to think he only made this statement recently.
Did You Know Reagan Picked Scalia for the Supreme Court Because He Was Italian? https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/01/supreme-court-breyer-scalia.html During his run for the White House, Joe Biden vowed to nominate a black woman for his first Supreme Court pick. With Justice Stephen Breyer now set to retire, the president is widely expected to make good on that promise, most likely by elevating Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Conservatives have already begun their finger-wagging: how dare Biden factor race into account in choosing someone for the high court! “Mr. Biden’s campaign promise that he’d appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court is unfortunate because it elevates skin color over qualifications,” the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board opined in a relatively polite example. (Trawl Twitter for the more grotesque versions.) These complaints should scan as absurd to anybody with an even glancing familiarity with the history of Supreme Court nominations, which have long involved demographic considerations. Ronald Reagan explicitly promised to nominate a woman during his run for president before picking Sandra Day O’Connor. When George H.W. Bush had to fill the seat of the court’s first black justice, Thurgood Marshall, he went with Clarence Thomas. (“I don’t feel he’s a quota,” Bush said at the time.) And as Jonathan Chait noted Thursday, there were commonly acknowledged Catholic and Jewish seats on the court during the mid-twentieth century. However, it was not until last night that I personally learned that Reagan chose Antonin Scalia—the father of originalism, the patron saint of conservative jurisprudence—for the court at least in part because he was “of Italian extraction.” That fact was revealed by Reagan’s former White House counsel, Peter Wallison, in a 2003 interview for the Miller Center of Public Affairs’ Presidential Oral History Program, which was later republished by the Washington Post.* You really need to read and savor the full quote. Swish it around your mouth like a nice barolo. (Some parts bolded, for emphasis.) “In the course of our discussion with Reagan the first time we were talking about the candidates … we had talked about Scalia. Reagan had asked me whether Scalia was of Italian extraction. I think he used the word ‘extraction,’ and I said, ‘Yes, he’s of Italian extraction.’ Reagan said, ‘That’s the man I want to nominate, so I want to meet him.’ We brought Scalia in… . The president met Scalia, and he offered Scalia the job right on the spot, in about 15 minutes, very little ceremony here. Scalia accepted on the spot. He was delighted. That was it… . “I think [Reagan] felt that it would be great to put an Italian American on the Supreme Court. He had all the usual American instincts: ‘We don’t have an Italian American on the court, so we ought to have one.’ He really felt good about doing that. It wasn’t principle so much as that kind of emotional commitment.” The American Prospect picked up on this quote back in 2010, when conservatives were busy defaming Sonia Sotomayor as an under-qualified affirmative action pick, and there isn’t a lot I can say now that the mag didn’t say then (“By modern Republican standards, this would make Reagan a racist, except that as Pat Buchanan might say, Scalia is white and ‘white men built this country,’” Adam Serwer wrote at the time). So I’ll just leave it at this: I am personally fine with Joe Biden following in Ronald Reagan’s footsteps by finding highly qualified nominees who also bring extra diversity to the bench, and conservatives ought to be as well.
Lol, dookie cons will continue their lame bellyaching if only to run up a score of slights that they personally keep
Been thinking about meritocracy as my daughter starts looking at colleges. Americans are so geared to thinking about who is "the best" and how "the best" should get rewarded with all the best stuff. Harvard's getting sued about it because their admission policy isn't built to admit "the best." It's the same thing with this Supreme Court pick. Americans have a hard time grappling with the idea that thousands of people could be "good enough" to be a Justice and you can just pick one.
He chose her because of their long connection with Obama. It's that insider aspect that I dislike with her, amplified by the fact she didn't finish a single Senate term in California. Tulsi can level the charge but has nothing but innuendo and race baiting of Kamala's identity. Ironic? Tulsi's campaign and war chest are anemic so maybe she needs it.
You can always count on Gabbard. For some reason that I can't quite pin down, she fking hate Harris and has always been ultra aggressive toward her (and other like skinned politicians).
Aside from being a minority female, I think Harris did a good job of distinguishing herself in Trump-related hearings. She looked smart and tough and unafraid. And she's done a fairly good job of curating her image, progressive enough but also with enough conservative bonafides (like her stint as AG) to insulate her a bit from accusations of unmoored liberalism. I think her selection for VP made a lot of sense. To my earlier point, she was definitely "good enough", especially for the mis-constructed role of VP. I actually find her inability to look like she's doing something useful and positive as VP to be befuddling. But I suppose VPs usually look useless no matter how talented they might have been because they aren't vested with any core responsibilities by the Constitution. Anyway, if he makes a choice as good as the Kamala Harris choice, it's a good enough choice.
Janice Rogers brown would have already been on the SC had biden not filibustered her appt to the federal bench in 2003.
The second time this conjecture has been posted. If true, why didn't trump use one of his three chances to nominate her? Was he too influenced by Biden's filibuster?
Where can I get your crystal ball? Looks like Obama didn't like her much either. Wonder why. http://obamaspeeches.com/021-Nomination-of-Justice-Janice-Rogers-Brown-Obama-Speech.htm Unfortunately, as has been stated repeatedly on this floor, in almost every legal decision that she has made and every political speech that she has given, Justice Brown has shown she is not simply a judge with very strong political views, she is a political activist who happens to be a judge.
... or possibly her political positions and even judicial opinions that some believe were even outside the beliefs of mainstream conservatives like Scalia... https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...the-president-agree-with-this-nominee/304012/
