Who's playing Hunter biden in the Hollywood thriller that we all know will come out eventually? Names?
Trumpers tell us they only select the best judges in the country! They tell us that they don't pick partisan warriors and biden diversity selection is bs. Their full of **** They have no issues in nominating racist zealots on the court ! Funny thing is some left learning folks these boards are brainwashed into thinking trump choose good candidates!
So no then? A president would not be allowed to limit selection to only white candidates? You would oppose that? But it is okay to do it with another race? Is it also okay to only consider women but not men? Only consider gay but not straight? Only consider trans but not cis? Shouldn't those 178 years have been a lesson to not consider race?
As you've said, the only criteria for a justice are that they are nominated by a President and confirmed by the Senate. So a president can indeed limit his selection to only white candidates. I'd raise holy hell if a president said such a thing. But the corollary isn't so. It is okay to say he would only consider a woman, or a black woman, or an indigenous person or whatever other tactic he feels would improve the diversity of the court and help reverse our legacy of white supremacy. Our national sin hasn't been generically discrimination, it's white supremacy. The lesson I take from those 178 years and then the 50 years since is that you can't just go color-blind and expect the legacy to go away -- you have to take affirmative actions toward erasing inequities inherited from the past to have equality in the future. At some point, it shouldn't be needed any longer, but we're not there yet.
I think both the 5th Circuit and Judge Ho seem to be properly applying Bruen (though I don't know that Bruen was the best decision, it could have been clearer and more forceful in protecting the 2nd Amendment). Agreeing to a civil order that prevents you from doing something that is already illegal doesn't seem like something that should deprive you of your rights. I have also participated in civil restraining order cases, and can attest that Judge Ho's analysis of the courts hesitance to deny such an order is accurate. I had one case where a guy was walking his dog and another person's dog attacked it. He jumped in to separate the dogs, and the other dog owner was trying to pull him away. He pushed the other dog owner back and got the dog's separated, but she fell and broke her arm. She called the police, but the police correctly determined that no crime had occurred, and refused to arrest him. She filed for a restraining order, even though the two of them had never interacted before or since the incident, so there was clearly no continuing danger to her. The court granted the order. Another restraining order was granted against a landlord who had entered a property to conduct repairs, even though he provided proof of proper notice of entry. Another was granted because some kook claimed that a person was pouring bleach on her driveway. None of those people should have had their rights taken away. Rahimi seems like a bad guy, and if convicted of his criminal charges will lose his rights anyway. The fact that he agreed to a civil protective order when there was no hearing or evidence of domestic violece should not be the trigger. I don't fully agree with the court's decision or Judge Ho's concurrence though. The court should have found 922(g)(8) facially unconstitutional as exceeding the scope of congress's power under Article 1. There is no Article 1 power that would allow Congress to prohibit an individual from possessing arms in his home, and certainly nothing in Article 1 makes reference to restraining orders and taking rights from citizens because they are in effect. The entire enterprise is a state issue and the feds shouldn't be involved. I don't think the lack of criteria allow the court to break the law. They couldn't solicit bribes, for example, for a seat on the Supreme Court. Discrimination by the government on the basis of race and sex is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. Unfortunately, no one has standing to challenge a Supreme Court nomination on that basis. I disagree that prior discrimination was limited to white supremacy or was only bad when so limited. The internment of the Japanese during WWII was not an act of white supremacy, but it was certainly racial discrimination and likewise was certainly inglorious. As the court once said, "The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race, is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." If Students for Fair Admissions vs. University of North Carolina turns out the way I expect, I would say we would have pretty solid evidence that Biden's process was unconstitutional.
Also to point out that KBJ wasn’t just chosen for race and gender. It’s not as though any black women was going to be nominated otherwise Biden could’ve just named Jean-Pierre or Rihanna. She is by nearly all accounts a qualified jurist with a lot of experience.
Same question to you that I posed to JuanValdez. Would it be okay for a president to limit his consideration to only white men? Assume that the chosen candidate will be a qualified jurist with a lot of experience. The issue is not whether the final candidate is qualified, but whether there is discrimination in reaching the choice.
Would I be happy with it? Probably not but as even you’ve acknowledged it has happened and all appointments have been made based off of narrow identity issues.
@StupidMoniker truly can not comprehend in his brain that every president in history until recently *only looked at white men as judges* cuz they sincerely thought the white race was better. From republican to democrats to Whig. People like him can't understand white supremacy and how it's incorporated in people's actions without knowing. You just gotta give him and ignore him they don't get it.
I don't know that it has happened, certainly not in my lifetime. I have never heard a POTUS say, "I'm only going to consider white men for this appointment." I assume when black people were not considered people and women couldn't vote, let alone practice law, that they were not considered for appointment to the Supreme Court, but hopefully we have progressed in a century and a half. I would say all appointments are made based on issues of ideology, rather than identity. People that like Clarence Thomas would love to have a white woman or Asian man, or whatever identity that had the same ideology. People that liked Stephen Breyer would love to have a white woman or Asian man, or whatever identity that had the same ideology (I hope). My issue is with saying, I need someone that has the ideology I am looking for, but is also immutable characteristic X. So when Truman appointed Hastie to the Court of Appeals and Kennedy considered him for the Supreme Court, did he not count? Are you considering 1949 recent?
What's wrong with you? I agree that Judge Ho is very out there, but it's not like he wouldn't have been picked by other Republican presidents. He was top of the FedSoc list. The point of the Trump judges stuff was that he didn't hand pick most of his judges - he just accepted a list given to him, then got surprised when not everyone sided with him all the time like he expected. I'm 100% sure you're referencing me, and it's fair to disagree, but I'm far from brainwashed towards thinking Trump has anything to do with knowing how to pick good judges. But he ended up picking some normal judges - not progressive judges of course, but normal conservative judges. Hell, the lower court crazy 2A case regarding this same issue - domestic abuse, was from a Trump judge that was previously picked by Obama, then repicked by Trump. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Counts I think you're missing the forest for the trees. The largest impacting factor on these crazy 2A cases is that Clarence Thomas majoritied a crazy 2A opinion that should have been a concurrence. His opinion sets binding precedence and opened the door to all these decisions. Hopefully and probably, Kavanaugh and Roberts is going to rewrite the 2A boundaries criteria. Also, it's a little weird that you're calling an Asian judge that you've never met, a racist. He's extremely conservative, but those are different things, and calling judges racist don't advance anything.
Is he out there? Do couples not use restraining orders tactically in divorce cases to further their agenda? I think you are mistaken and this was clearly addressing me (which is why I was tagged when I didn't immediately respond), even though I am neither Trump supporter nor Republican. They certainly appoint better judges than the Dems though. The thing is, Thomas was right in Bruen (or at least mostly right, he should have defended the 2nd more aggressively and said that any permitting requirement or registration was unconstitutional). We have always understood that felons can lose rights, it is what allows them to go to prison. People that are not felons should not lose rights, and that includes the right to bear arms and defend themselves. NY (and CA and a few other states) tried to be cute and pretend they were going to allow people to bear arms, but then denied most of the people seeking permits. It was those favored by the party in power in their jurisdiction that was blessed with the ability to defend themselves. Thomas rightly slapped down this regime of gun privileges and said, No. The 2nd Amendment is a right. You cannot just take it away on a whim. Someone once asked what the best or most important decision written by Thomas was, and this is probably it.
The ruling itself was correct, but Alito (who I normally hate) had the much better logical analysis and his concurrence should have been the majority opinion. Well, half of his concurrence was just trolling Breyer, but whatever. Alito is the snappy conservative counterpart to Kagan, but Kagan is usually wittier. Anyhow, all of the concurrences were actually better than Thomas's majority opinion. Barrett's is purely: the right to bear arms obviously means the right to carry - no d'uh. It should have been that simple. I completely agree that from a logical text, history, tradition, and precedent analysis, Bruen should have overturned impossible-to-get licensing regimes like those in NY and Hawaii and whatnot. That stated, Thomas is nuts. It's fine to criticize the prior criteria of government interests, especially because federal judges were treating intermediate scrutiny like rational basis - that's why Bruen was needed. The biggest problem is the Thomas history test is just as flawed and confusing for judges. Federal judges are no better historians than policy analysts. It's nearly impossible to have a consistent evaluation of gun laws, like magazine restrictions, when there were no magazines during the founding era and reconstruction era. By the way, WTF is Thomas doing cherry-picking history - he is so bad in doing that. Yes, everyone does it, but he's pretty awful at it. You can be a gun rights believer and still see the flaws in Thomas' decision. You don't throw out a century plus of precedent in favor of cherry picked history just because some states went too far. Kavanaugh, Roberts, Alito, and ACB know this. I'm pretty confident that when the ripeness time passes, there will be a scaling back gun case that is either going to be 7-2 or 8-1 against Thomas. Thomas had the correct conclusion, but his personal made up tests were just nuts.
You agreed earlier that appointments because of religion were also identity and agreed that several of the recent appointments were because of their religious backgrounds. You also made the argument that white men should be picked because most jurist have been white men so it’s more likely to find qualified individuals among white men. So now you’re saying that in your lifetime an appointment made because someone was white and make hasn’t happened? I don’t know how old you are but the race was at less partly considered in the appointment of David Souter by GH Bush. Being Bush’s first USSC appointment he wanted an easy appointment that wouldn’t arouse controversy. A relatively unremarkable white male fit that in 1990.
