Supreme Court Nominee

[WuWei]

Because he’s not a famous CEO.

[Borgia_dude]

@WuWei

Because he’s not a famous CEO.

What’s your point? My company picks their CEO from within so it is a small pool, maybe 20 candidates at most. Small pools still provide excellent people. It depends on the pool.

Pretty sure the black female judges up for SC noms seem to be highly qualified based on the ABA, who probably know better than you and I on judging qualifications.

[Striker840]

@Borgia_dude

@Striker840

@Samm

@Borgia_dude

@Samm

@Borgia_dude

@Samm

@Borgia_dude

@Samm

@Borgia_dude

@Samm

It’s quite simple. Because he didn’t. Trump promised to replace in kind. Biden did the exact opposite.

It’s weird you think SC seats have female or male associated with them.

I never said any such thing. Are your arguments so weak that you have to make things up?

You’re the one arguing that the prior SC’s sex has meaning in their replacement. That’s your weak argument.

Quote me.

Already did in your use of it in your argument.

No you didn’t. You made something up and claimed that I said it. You’re not new here. You know how to post a quote.

Um, I already did. Multiple times.

No you didn’t. You have quoted me, but none of those quotes verify that which you are claiming that I said,

He is pulling the “black women for a white male” out of one post. The usual

It was important to Samm, important enough to make a distinction between Trump and Biden. His rule, not mine.

It IS a difference, once again, the majority of us have ZERO issue a black woman was chosen. What @you continuously fail to acknowledge is the FACT that Biden ANNOUNCED the FACT that he was limiting his search on a replacement by 2 criteria, a specific race and gender. He could have simply picked her and it would have been the typical partisan bickering and the majority honestly wouldn’t care he picked a black woman. I know that is hard to comprehend, but it is accurate.

[PurpnGold]

@Striker840

@Borgia_dude

@Striker840

@Samm

@Borgia_dude

@Samm

@Borgia_dude

@Samm

@Borgia_dude

@Samm

@Borgia_dude

@Samm

It’s quite simple. Because he didn’t. Trump promised to replace in kind. Biden did the exact opposite.

It’s weird you think SC seats have female or male associated with them.

I never said any such thing. Are your arguments so weak that you have to make things up?

You’re the one arguing that the prior SC’s sex has meaning in their replacement. That’s your weak argument.

Quote me.

Already did in your use of it in your argument.

No you didn’t. You made something up and claimed that I said it. You’re not new here. You know how to post a quote.

Um, I already did. Multiple times.

No you didn’t. You have quoted me, but none of those quotes verify that which you are claiming that I said,

He is pulling the “black women for a white male” out of one post. The usual

It was important to Samm, important enough to make a distinction between Trump and Biden. His rule, not mine.

It IS a difference, once again, the majority of us have ZERO issue a black woman was chosen. What @you continuously fail to acknowledge is the FACT that Biden ANNOUNCED the FACT that he was limiting his search on a replacement by 2 criteria, a specific race and gender. He could have simply picked her and it would have been the typical partisan bickering and the majority honestly wouldn’t care he picked a black woman. I know that is hard to comprehend, but it is accurate.

Same as Trump and Reagan. I guess it’s ok when republicans do it?

[Striker840]

Yea, yea, skipped record time. Been covered multiple times.

[PurpnGold]

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Striker840

but it is accurate.

It also is irrelevant

[FreeAndClear]

@Ben_Natuf

your wrong. its just that simple. stare decisis is a legal principal that says the courts should not change precedent because it provides continuity and predictability in the law. it is not precedent, it is what preserves precedent

Ok so If i am wrong where are you getting your definition?

[Borgia_dude]

@Striker840

It IS a difference, once again, the majority of us have ZERO issue a black woman was chosen. What @you continuously fail to acknowledge is the FACT that Biden ANNOUNCED the FACT that he was limiting his search on a replacement by 2 criteria, a specific race and gender. He could have simply picked her and it would have been the typical partisan bickering and the majority honestly wouldn’t care he picked a black woman. I know that is hard to comprehend, but it is accurate.

Yes, just like Trump announcing that he would be nominating a woman. But nobody complained about an affirmative action pick then.

[Ben_Natuf]

Supreme Court Justices Spar Over Precedent

this is a fair article that gets into it. yes, stare decisis is following precedent, but its much more than that. its following precedent even when they know its wrong. Even Thomas, who seems the most likely to ignore previous precedent if he thought it wrong, on constitutional issues says to ignore it the precedent must be “demonstrably erroneous” not just wrong. In citing him Kavinaugh changes the text to “egregiously wrong” and adds a lot of caveats to how even that isn’t enough.

this quote from Marbury is very descriptive of where we are today with regard to stare decisis. the SCOTUS routinely avoids answering constitutional questions relying instead on precedents and interpretations of law (now even e.o.'s) that allow them to dispose of cases without delving into those questions. They even say that’s what they’re doing. daca is a good example of that.

144
Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

WILLIAM MARBURY v. JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State of the United States.

[WuWei]

The ABA is a guild. Are their goals the same as mine? Ours?

[WuWei]

@PurpnGold

Same as Trump and Reagan. I guess it’s ok when republicans do it?

Trump committed to a race?

[WuWei]

@Ben_Natuf

yes, stare decisis is following precedent, but its much more than that. its following precedent even when they know its wrong.

I get what you’re saying now. The word you’re looking for is “doctrine”.

That it is binding rather than persuasive.

As in Kimble v Marvel.

I can agree to that.

[Borgia_dude]

@WuWei

The ABA is a guild. Are their goals the same as mine? Ours?

[WuWei]

No answer?

[Piper]

Anthea Butler claims speak for all black women. From the MSNBC article: KBJ was - “Getting vilified by people who are neither her intellectual nor moral peers.” LOL

She was being questioned on her testimony, background and her beliefs. That background is a person’s defense.

[Borgia_dude]

@WuWei

No answer?

I’m sure the ABA is an appropriate agency to judge whether a candidate is qualified regardless of goals.

If you feel otherwise, make your case.

[Borgia_dude]

I feel sorry for Justice Thomas. Can you imagine having to listen to that nutbar of a wife?

Unless he approves of what she says…?

[WuWei]

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

No answer?

I’m sure the ABA is an appropriate agency to judge whether a candidate is qualified regardless of goals.

If you feel otherwise, make your case.

I’m not. The ABA is a guild. I will concede it is all we have and better than nothing.

[WuWei]

@Borgia_dude

Unless he approves of what she says…?

Nice.