Also to add the choice of John Roberts to replace Rehnquist race probably played a role for the same reasons as Souter. GW Bush felt he wouldn’t be very controversial and have an easier appointment. It was initially thought at the time that he would appoint the first Hispanic to the court in Alberto Gonzalez but they might be too controversial for his race and some other reasons.
When I was questioned whether or not appointing someone because they are Christian would be identity based, I agreed that it would be. I don't know that someone was appointed because they are a Christian. Certainly I have not seen a President say that only a Christian would be considered. There was an assertion by another poster that Barret and Thomas were appointed because they were Christian. I have seen no statement to that effect from either Bush or Trump. I certainly never said that white men should be picked because most jurists have been white men. I said that based on the numbers, a race and gender neutral process would not result in such a small number of white male appointments, also taking into account that the person doing the picking has explicitly said he is picking based on identity, as has his spokesperson. They are not denying this. If they were picking based solely on ideology (picking the justices that will best support their policy agenda once on the court) and happened to end up with majority black women, that would be fine. They are not. It is a question of process, not outcome. People should be picked based on fidelity to the Constitution, as that is the job of a Supreme Court Justice. If that results in all white Christian heterosexual cisgendered men, fine. If that results in all Asian Zoroastrian pansexual non-binary assigned female at birth persons, also fine. It sounds as though the consideration was ease of confirmation, not race and gender. Do you have a statement from President Bush that he would only consider white men? I provided you with a statement from Biden that he was only considering black women. Where is the equivalent statement from any President regarding white men? In my lifetime there have been eight US Presidents. Seven of them have nominated people to the Supreme Court. Carter nominated zero, Reagan nominated five, GHW Bush two, Clinton two, GW Bush three, Obama three, and Biden one. Of those seven, only Biden made a pre-nomination statement that he would limit his consideration on the basis of race and gender.
In all likelihood, the only difference between Biden and the preceding presidents is that Biden was honest about appointing a female black woman. I’ve not asked him myself, but I’d be willing to guess he did so because he decided that rallying female and black votes was worth the political fodder that would be provided to Republican dipshits who would then question Browns LSAT score, like Trader George. Similarly, past presidents declined to do so based on whatever political calculus they made in their respective circumstances. I used to be about clean process. In a post Trump, polarized world, where Republicans are unable to deal with basic facts and science, and would rather promote endless culture wars, clean process is an optional nicety.
It was a political move when Biden expressed his desire for a Black woman to be on the Court during the Democratic primary, but he followed through on it. Nothing is out of the ordinary except that some on the Right find it unacceptable to have a Black woman on the Court. The nomination of a Supreme Court justice has always been political. Qualification is only one factor in the political calculus of selecting a Supreme Court justice. While many qualified individuals are available, the selection has never been solely about choosing the most qualified candidate, but rather someone whose views and politics align with those of the POTUS. The notion of selecting the most qualified candidate is a fabrication by politicians. Furthermore, it is also a lie perpetuated by those who cannot accept the idea of a Black woman sitting on the Court.
I'm not sure, but outside of the world of media and Twitter, I would guess that there is more opposition to Kavanaugh than the other two justices. This is based on my belief that the American public cares about ethics. It's possible that someone has conducted a poll on this.
I'm going to ask an honest question. I don't care about Rachel Levine and I imagine most people who don't spend their days in extremely-online echo chambers don't either. I honestly couldn't tell you who occupied this governmental post for any prior administration. Would you call Rachel Levine a freak to her face? Would you call any obviously transgendered person a freak to their face?
@Astrodome the difference between biden and trump is he stands up to the radical wing of the party. Lefties are bashing biden non because biden won't allow dc to lessen penalties on violent crimes. @fchowd0311 pushing bad policies just alienates voters needed to pass big bills like m4a. This is what lefties don't understand. They can't build governing coalitions ever. It's purity politics 24/7
Probably it is true that preceding presidents were selecting people partially based on identity, but we can't necessarily prove it. Was Marshall picked to have a black man on the supreme court? Was Thomas picked because he was a black man, specifically because he was replacing Marshall. Was Sandra Day O'Connor picked because she was a woman and they wanted a woman on the court? Was ACB picked because she was a woman and was replacing Ruth Bader Ginsberg? Was Sotomayor picked to have a Latina justice? Probably yes to all of them. Did the Presidents who appointed them say only people of their identity group would be considered? Not that I can recall. I don't think Trump serving one term as President should change our ideals. Who cannot accept the idea of a black woman on the Supreme Court? Do these same people have a problem with a white woman or a black man on the court? Is it the combination of black and woman that they cannot abide? Would they have the same objection to Janice Rogers Brown?
Trump used the bully pulpit to go after minorities. Biden uses it to go after corporate America to get results tangible results for Americans. Choose your warrior wisely
Except that is essentially saying that white males should be chosen. Note while white males might make up the majority of jurists they aren’t a majority of the population and you yourself have said that there aren’t qualifications for USSC appointments so why then should that there are more white make jurists matter for picking judicial appointments. I will grant you that I don’t have a specific quote from either GW Or GH Bush saying that they only wanted white men nominated but then why did they specifically feel that a white male was the less controversial appointment?
It is simply evidence that the Biden administration is not using a race blind selection standard, no more and no less. Maybe they just thought the specific person they selected would be broadly supported. Souter was confirmed 90-9. Roberts was confirmed 78-22. It appears they were rather non-controversial.
I agree Biden isn’t using a race blind selection standard. He literally said that. That doesn’t mean that other Presidents didn’t either.
It's last week's argument, but didn't want to leave it hanging. The most natural application of the idea of equal protection to this question seems to be as an employment discrimination issue. But I think of nominations as determining the leadership of the country, not an act of employment, so it's a weird application. And in any case it is recognized that exceptions can be made for legitimate business considerations in which representation could fit. And and and, presidents cannot be constrained except by the constitution (which does require equal protection, but most of what we think that means is in legislation, not in the constitution). I am far far from any kind of expert in this area; I don't want to try to persuade others, but I find it personally unpersuasive.
Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. I provided evidence that Biden wasn't (video of his statement). I said I don't agree with not using a race blind selection standard. When asked, I said I wasn't okay with others using race in selection. Then you said I was advocating for using race as a standard (specifically that we should select for white men). If you don't use race as a standard, random chance would have you select a white jurist more than any other group (assuming you were picking a resident of the United States, you would likely end up with an Asian person if you selected from all over the world). If you limit your selection to American lawyers (as every President has done, though that is not a requirement) the chances that any one of them will be white are very high, even if your only selection criteria are American and lawyer. In 2010, 89% of all American lawyers were white. In 2020 that was down to 86%. (per the ABA) In my lifetime, there have been 17 nominees for the Supreme Court (15 confirmed) and two people elevated from Associate to Chief Justice. 12% have been black (2 of 17). 6% have been Hispanic (1 of 17). The remaining 82% have been white. There is simply no evidence of racial selection by the other Presidents. They may have been racially discriminatory, and they may not have, but statistically they seem to be overrepresenting minority candidates, there are no statements that I am aware of that they were selecting for white candidates. Diversity of the Federal Bench | ACS (acslaw.org). This only covers the last three Presidents, but the numbers there show that Trump's judicial appointments most closely resemble the demographics of American lawyers (racially speaking), Obama's most closely resemble the US population as a whole, and Biden's appointments drastically underrepresent white judges by comparison to either group. Fair enough. I wouldn't want to select people on the basis of race, but it may not be illegal to do so for nominations for judges. As I said, no one would have standing anyway, so I don't think it is a case that will ever be decided.
Wow. First time DOT has stepped up to block a merger. What a crazy time were living in. I don't think people realize the anti corporate environment were living in right now. This is standard oil era TRUST BUSTING. Man it's fkin amazing to finally watch corporate America get punched in the face. Fk corporate America. Whoooohooooooo
What's it going to do to ticket prices if Spirit just goes belly up instead of merging with Jet Blue? They weren't planning a merger because of how hot a property Spirit Airlines is, they are operating at a loss. Their stock price hasn't been this low since air travel was shut down for COVID. The company is down 75% in 4 years.
They're not in the negative. Last quarter they had a profitable quarter and pre covid they were doing fine. Spirit isn't going bankrupt. We need more low cost airlines not consolidate more that would only hurt consumers and workers.
