Who should be the next SCOTUS judge?

Status
Not open for further replies.
fmdog44 said:
The fact that our Supreme Court is a toy for politicians to use for their ability to wreck the opposing party. It is a huge black mark on the concept of freedom of choice and justice itself. Must change.
Click to expand...
Fat chance it will ever change. The SC is in essence the third political branch of the government. I have a low opinion of it due to Shelby v. Holder, Citizen's United, Bush v. Gore and especially Plessy v. Ferguson and Dreg Scott v. Sandford
 

Pepper said:
The seated President gets to nominate. Getting the senate on board is another thing.
Click to expand...
Seated president gets to nominate but Mitch McConnell gets to decide who is allowed in. See Merrick Garland 2016.
Seat should go to someone without bias and of exemplary character but they appear to no longer be a criteria based on last two appointments. Our judges should be the best of the best, color of skin or politics should not be a factor.
 
Last edited:
Alligatorob said:
Maybe they should just do a lottery of decent federal judge names and choose at random. I am sure the ABA could do the screening.

Take the politics out of it, or reduce it anyway, and we would probably do no worse, maybe better than what we have. And we would not be subjected to months of crap on the news about it...
Click to expand...
The ABA has been ignored even when they rated nominees unqualified.

During the last administration, the ABA rated 9 nominees "not qualified" to serve as federal judges. Of those 9, seven were still confirmed because they satisfied a political preference.

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pu...nfirming-unqualified-judicial-nominees-law360
 
helenbacque said:
Seated president gets to nominate but Mitch McConnell gets to decide who is allowed in. See Merrick Garland 2016.
Seat should go to someone without bias and of exemplary character but they appear to no longer be a criteria based on last two appointments. Our judges should be the best of the best, color of skin or politics should not be a factor.
Click to expand...

McConnell had the majority in 2016, not so now.
 
Black Democrats assured Biden of the nomination and the win. Black Democrats, especially women have worked hard and long for the party. No reason at all why respect and acknowledgment should not be shown.
 
Chet said:
I heard someone on the radio speculate that Biden will nominate Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton will be appointed as VP to get her in line to succeed Biden.
Click to expand...
I don't think Biden will run in 2024. Harris has no qualifications whatsoever for the Supreme Court so probably not. Maybe Biden can name her AG and get Merrick Garland on the court somehow. That would clear a path for Hillary, who would "only" be 77 in 2024. Nowadays, that's a mere child.
 
Reagan did the same thing with O'Conner. He was acknowledging the role and importance of women to the party and the nation. Same as Biden, same stuff, different party and there is nothing wrong in doing this for either.
 
Nathan said:
Somebody who's qualified and not like the last 3 right leaning ideologues appointed during the last administration.

As one of Biden's campaign promises he vowed to nominate a Black female, apparently the voters were in agreeance. He kept his promise.
Click to expand...

Eh, Biden will nominate whomever he sees fit and the Senate will confirm. That's the way it works.

Justice Sotomayor in recent weeks has demonstrated the intelligence of a doorknob, but she's on the Court for life. So be it.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/11/politics/fact-check-sotomayor-mandate-covid-dinner-gorsuch/index.html
 
Manatee said:
Biden will nominate whoever his handlers tell him to. So far he has not mentioned Maxine Waters.
Click to expand...
Would you care to enlighten us as to who you believe Biden's uh, "handlers" are? You're right though, Biden has not mentioned Maxine Waters, nor millions of other citizens who might be eligible for consideration.
 
Alligatorob said:
Maybe they should just do a lottery of decent federal judge names and choose at random. I am sure the ABA could do the screening.

Take the politics out of it, or reduce it anyway, and we would probably do no worse, maybe better than what we have. And we would not be subjected to months of crap on the news about it...
Click to expand...
That's not a bad idea. It would require a change to our Constitution, though.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top