A Court Supreme

[Stavros]

Ronald Reagan 1980: "“one of the first supreme court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find”."
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022...eme-court-pick


Joe Biden 2022: "The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. "
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates...pick-february/

Music, Maestro, please! As in Crotchets and Quavers.

May the best woman win. And she is?

[Nick Danger]

Ronald Reagan 1980: "“one of the first supreme court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find”."
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022...eme-court-pick


Joe Biden 2022: "The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. "
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates...pick-february/

Music, Maestro, please! As in Crotchets and Quavers.

May the best woman win. And she is?

Don't get too excited, Stavros. For one thing, the Senate will have to approve the nominee and Breyer isn't retiring until February, by which time we will have a conservative majority in the Senate. They might just block the nominee until conservatives get the White House back in 2024. I DOUBT it, that wouldn't play well with the proletariat; but they could. Also, conservatives currently have a 6-3 majority in the SCOTUS so even putting Queen Latifah in there won't level the playing field. Still, a minor win for liberals if Biden doesn't figure out a way to fuck it up.

[Stavros]

As a non-US citizen and therefore neutral, I offer this YouTube interview from CBS that skirts over the field. Maybe Biden should expand the Supreme Court and appoint all four of these women? Why not?

[Nick Danger]

As a non-US citizen and therefore neutral, I offer this YouTube interview from CBS that skirts over the field. Maybe Biden should expand the Supreme Court and appoint all four of these women? Why not?

Sure, why not? Ignoring the Constitution hasn't been a problem for Biden up to this point.

[broncofan]

Sure, why not? Ignoring the Constitution hasn't been a problem for Biden up to this point.

Where in the Constitution does it fix the number of Supreme Court Justices? This is a rhetorical question but take a look and tell me where you find it.

[Nick Danger]

Where in the Constitution does it fix the number of Supreme Court Justices? This is a rhetorical question but take a look and tell me where you find it.

It's not in the Constitution exactly, Bronco, as I'm sure you know. However the Constitution does stipulate three separate but equal branches of government in the first 3 articles, and we've had 9 Supreme Court justices for over 150 years now because it WOULD be unconstitutional for a political party to alter the court for partisan purposes - i.e., it would be an intrusion of legislative and executive power into the judicial branch, therefore unconstitutional. Frankly, I'd like to see him try it - one more ridiculous failure to overreach his power in order to subvert democracy added to the list.

[Stavros]

Guess Y'all Alabammy Bound...all the way to 1903...

"In a 1903 case out of Alabama, Giles v Harris, the supreme court determined that it was powerless to stop a state from disfranchising Black voters even if the methods were unconstitutional.

This assault on African Americans’ right to vote was an assault on American democracy aided and abetted by the highest court in the land. The results were devastating. By 1960, there were counties in Alabama that had no Black voters registered, while simultaneously having more than 100% of white age-eligible voters on the rolls. In Mississippi a mere 6.7% of eligible Black adults were registered to vote."
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...lection-system

[Stavros]

Three candidates reviewed. Of one, Anderson says

"Jackson is seen as the top candidate. And she, too, has a proven record of bipartisan support: she was confirmed to the appeals court on a 53-44 vote. Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voted for her."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ick-short-list

But if nominated, will the same people who once voter for her, now vote against?

And why does the President choose Supreme Court Justices? Ought the Separation of Powers confer this decison to the Judiciary? Or an independent body?

[blackchubby38]

Three candidates reviewed. Of one, Anderson says

"Jackson is seen as the top candidate. And she, too, has a proven record of bipartisan support: she was confirmed to the appeals court on a 53-44 vote. Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina voted for her."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ick-short-list

But if nominated, will the same people who once voter for her, now vote against?

And why does the President choose Supreme Court Justices? Ought the Separation of Powers confer this decison to the Judiciary? Or an independent body?

I think it should be J. Michele Childs for three reasons:

1. The view about having a Supreme Court justice who didn't go to one of the Ivy League schools.

2. If we are going take things into consideration like life experiences and personal perspective, then there is something to be said about having a black woman from the South on the Supreme Court.

3. She has Jim Clyburn's support. Without Clyburn's endorsement of Biden before the 2020 South Carolina primary, there is a good chance that he doesn't win the Democratic party nomination.

[Stavros]

Thanks, Blackchubby for your views -I don't know any of the candidates. My only additional point to yours, is to note Justice Amy Coney Barrett also did not graduate from an Ivy League law school, but you probaby knew that anyway.