Justice Stephen Breyer is stepping down. Will Clueless appoint Kam the Sham to the position? It's perfect. He gets rid of an embarrassment. He selects her replacement (Evita). Then he announces he will not run in 2024.

As for Kam the Sham it is the perfect no show job for her. SCOTUS doesn't answer about their position until they announce their decision. She can go forever never actually authoring an opinion by just concurring or joining the opposing statement. And they are never taken into account because the appointment is lifetime.

Justice Stephen Breyer is stepping down. Will Clueless appoint Kam the Sham to the position? It's perfect. He gets rid of an embarrassment. He selects her replacement (Evita). Then he announces he will not run in 2024.

Not a chance. He's already got 5 black female judges lined up to take Breyer's place. He made that promise a year ago. Harris would have been a bad choice - other than a way to remove her from the 2024 ticket. She will not be elected if she runs.

edit: Evita won't be a candidate, either. HILLARY, I MEANT HILLARY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not a chance. He's already got 5 black female judges lined up to take Breyer's place. He made that promise a year ago.What a reassuring justification for appointing a person to SCOTUS. "You're a black female, so you're in!"

Clueless likes to check off boxes
Kam checks off these boxes
1.1st female Black Associate Justice
2. 1st Asian American Associate Justice
3.1st Black/Asian Associate Justice
4.1st Black/Asian Female Associate Justice

However my bet is on Justice Michelle Childs because she is the one Jim Clyburn wants in ,and he owes Clyburn bigley

However my bet is on Justice Michelle Childs because she is the one Jim Clyburn wants in

Childs would be an excellent choice in her own right.

I have not had a chance to study her rulings and written thoughts in detail . So I will reserve opinion . On a positive note ;she is from my adopted new state . The only case I am vaguely familiar with is a case where some nuke workers did not want the mandatory vax . She ruled that if they did not want a vax, they did not have to work there . Vax mandates are going down all over the country .

I have not had a chance to study her rulings and written thoughts in detail . So I will reserve opinion . On a positive note ;she is from my adopted new state . The only case I am vaguely familiar with is a case where some nuke workers did not want the mandatory vax . She ruled that if they did not want a vax, they did not have to work there . Vax mandates are going down all over the country .

I still don't understand the anti-vax stuff. Religious exceptions and medical reasons, ok. Otherwise ....... I have some really good cartoons on the subject but I can't figure out how to post them here. I get to the final click - "Submit..." and it says "too many characters". I used to post images here but for some reason, can't any more.

Anyway, you wouldn't like them, tom.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EbTvaJPXQAIKxLf?format=jpg&name=small

you know what the last booster is for ? the Pokemon variant

Noooooo, Pikachu!!!!

Great picture, WG.

I had to look up Pikachu.

I still don't understand the anti-vax stuffNot anti-vax .It is anti-vax mandate

Does the vax stop transmission ? No . So then it not a public health issue . It is a personal choice issue and proponents of big government mandates have no compelling case for overriding individual choice .
The most compelling argument for them is that they prevent hospitalization. Fine . But if you are going to force health decision by government fiat where does it end ?

Over 30 million Americans have been diagnosed with heart disease .647,000 people die of heart disease in the US every year. How do you prevent that ? By forcing everyone to maintain a certain weight ;to regularily exercise ? We don't and no one would accept that abuse of government power .

Over 30 million Americans have been diagnosed with heart disease .647,000 people die of heart disease in the US every year. How do you prevent that ? By forcing everyone to maintain a certain weight ;to regularily exercise ? We don't and no one would accept that abuse of government power
Is heart disease transmissible? Is it a public health issue?

Evidently the Dems forced this decision down Breyer's throat . He has been under pressure to resign while the Dems still have the Senate . He came to the decision to do it but the news was announced much sooner than he planned to do so.
This is how the left appreciates his solid liberal voting record in SCOTUS . They could not wait to boot him out .

This is what he was forced to see every day as he entered the court
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EyiafokWEAI_9BS?format=jpg&name=small


Shame on them !!

+
Not anti-vax .It is anti-vax mandate

It is both.


Does the vax stop transmission ? No

Are you serious? The vaccine prevents getting the disease. THAT prevents transmission when you don't have the disease. Do some vaccinated people get and transmit? Yes, but that number is infinitesimal. The reward overwhelmingly outweighs the risk,.


So then it not a public health issue

Of course, it's a public health issue.


It is a personal choice issue and proponents of big government mandates have no compelling case for overriding individual choice .

"Big" governments have NOT mandated the vaccine. The federal government has mandated the vaccine for ITS EMPLOYEES, which they have a perfect right to do just like any employer.


The most compelling argument for them is that they prevent hospitalization.

No, the most compelling argument is that they prevent the disease. That leads naturally to prevention of hospitalization and death.


But if you are going to force health decision by government fiat where does it end?

There is no government fiat forcing health decisions by fiat.


Over 30 million Americans have been diagnosed with heart disease .647,000 people die of heart disease in the US every year. How do you prevent that ? By forcing everyone to maintain a certain weight ;to regularily exercise ? We don't and no one would accept that abuse of government power .

Good grief. No one has suggested the government force people to maintain a certain weight or to regularly exercise. You are bringing up non-existent situations.

Evidently the Dems forced this decision down Breyer's throat .

Evidently? Provide the evidence.


This is what he was forced to see every day as he entered the court

(Picture)


Shame on them !!

Shame on you for such a weak post.

What ? Are you really denying that the left has been subjecting him to a pressure campaign to retire ?

Justice Breyer Says He Has No Plans to Leave Supreme Court - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/15/us/breyer-supreme-court-retire.html)

Justice Breyer Says He Will Retire When He Thinks The Time Is Right : NPR (https://www.npr.org/2021/09/09/1035092720/progressives-want-justice-stephen-breyer-to-retire-his-response-not-yet)

Liberals Blast Breyer’s ‘Ego’ as He Balks at Retirement Pressure (bloomberglaw.com) (https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/liberals-blast-breyers-ego-as-he-balks-at-retirement-pressure)

Justice Stephen Breyer remaining on the Supreme Court is a gamble (msnbc.com) (https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/justice-stephen-breyer-remaining-supreme-court-gamble-n1274447)


Justice Stephen Breyer should retire from the Supreme Court (msnbc.com) (https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/i-m-convinced-justice-stephen-breyer-should-retire-supreme-court-n1263399)


In the summer he publicly said he has no plans to retire . What changed ? The compliant press in their euphoria that Clueless gets to pick an ultra-progressive that checks off the right boxes have generally failed to mention the extreme pressure he has been under to step aside .


In the summer he hired 4 clerks . Is that the move of someone planning to step aside ? Court watchers predicted after the hiring that he would stay on.

Justice Stephen Breyer Hires Law Clerks for SCOTUS Fall Term (businessinsider.com) (https://www.businessinsider.com/justice-stephen-breyer-hires-law-clerks-supreme-court-fall-term-2021-7)

Breyer Hires Four Law Clerks for Next Term, High Court Confirms (bloombergquint.com) (https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/breyer-hires-four-law-clerks-for-next-term-high-court-confirms)

Is heart disease transmissible? Is it a public health issue?



I already noted that the vax does not prevent transmission .



Are you serious? The vaccine prevents getting the disease.......No, the most compelling argument is that they prevent the disease.
Wrong again

CDC Director says vaccines are not preventing transmission (audacy.com) (https://www.audacy.com/kmox/news/national/cdc-director-says-vaccines-are-not-preventing-transmission)

Most of the World’s Vaccines Likely Won’t Prevent Infection From Omicron - The New York Times (nytimes.com) (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/19/health/omicron-vaccines-efficacy.html)


"Big" governments have NOT mandated the vaccine. The federal government has mandated the vaccine for ITS EMPLOYEES, which they have a perfect right to do just like any employer.
The mandate from OSHA was knocked down by SCOTUS . Now OSHA is not going to enforce the mandate for Federal workers .


Good grief. No one has suggested the government force people to maintain a certain weight or to regularly exercise. You are bringing up non-existent situations.
Not yet . Right now they are in the public education and strict labelling phase . Many politicians are self-appointed nutrition czars .They see Americans as incapable of making decisions about eating. Therefore, they feel that government at all levels must try to control their diets by directing people to eat a certain way or expressly prohibiting or banning the consumption of certain foods. You know that well . Nanny Bloomy was a notorious food Nazi.

What a reassuring justification for appointing a person to SCOTUS. "You're a black female, so you're in!"


“Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake” “This the Constitution forbids.” [ Justice Lewis Powell : Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978).]


The really sad thing is that a case can be made for every candidate I have seen on the alleged short list without ever mentioning race. But now whoever is picked will always have the 'diversity pick' label.

Then there is this from Reuters Tuesday's news

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a bid to bar Harvard University and the University of North Carolina from considering race in undergraduate admissions in a case that imperils affirmative action policies widely used to increase the number of Black and Hispanic students on American campuses.

I'll give Clueless credit . He makes sure the issues of the day are front and center.

I am surprised I did not see Janice Rogers Brown on Clueless' short list . She is a well qualified Black Female jurist who was on the DC Circus Court of Appeals .

What ? Are you really denying that the left has been subjecting him to a pressure campaign to retire ?

Breyer announced his retirement today. He had no need to succumb to any pressure to retire. He is perfectly aware of the need to be replaced with a like-minded justice.

CDC Director says vaccines are not preventing transmission (audacy.com) (https://www.audacy.com/kmox/news/national/cdc-director-says-vaccines-are-not-preventing-transmission)

The context is that masks should be worn even by vaccinated people. Same as always.


The mandate from OSHA was knocked down by SCOTUS . Now OSHA is not going to enforce the mandate for Federal workers

OSHA will be back with the more routine method of accomplishing the safety it is charged with - not under emergency orders.


Many politicians are self-appointed nutrition czars .They see Americans as incapable of making decisions about eating. Therefore, they feel that government at all levels must try to control their diets by directing people to eat a certain way or expressly prohibiting or banning the consumption of certain foods.

Complete nonsense. Do you honestly believe the government will follow us around checking on our diet and our weight? Wanna buy a bridge n Brooklyn?


“Preferring members of any one group for no reason other than race or ethnic origin is discrimination for its own sake” “This the Constitution forbids.” [ Justice Lewis Powell : Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978).]

The black female SC candidates do NOT fit into this category. Their candidacy is marked by superb academic and judicial credentials - not "...no reason other than race...."

The replacement;"marked by superb academic and judicial credentials",will be chosen only after the field is radically winnowed by open race and sex discrimination, which has gone from being illegal to being celebrated and practiced by a president of the United States.

The replacement;"marked by superb academic and judicial credentials",will be chosen only after the field is radically winnowed by open race and sex discrimination
You're saying white will always win out, be the best? No poc can possibly top them?

not saying that at all. I'm saying the best qualified candidate should be selected . Clueless made race and gender his first qualifier . The Bakke decision rejected his type of criteria.The three leading candidates ; Justice Leondra Krueger ,Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and Judge Michelle Childs are all worthy candidates who could have been considered for any vacancy without declaring that they were qualified by virtue of filling a quota

Well, we women ARE beyond reproach. I'm thinking she should also be part of the LBGTQ community.

There you go intersectional conflicts when the oppressed become the oppressors

Grutter v. Bollinger :in 2003 SCOTUS decided that if multiple candidates were equally qualified then other qualifiers like race and gender could be a determining factor.

Same year in Gratz v. Bollinger SCOTUS decided that if race or other factors that were discriminatory under Bakke were the first qualifiers then it was unconstitutional .
Breyer voted in the majority in both decisions .

By announcing that race and gender was his first qualifiers ,Clueless is violating the law.
The sad part is that this fall SCOTUS will rule on 2 cases where Harvard and U of Mass use that very criteria in admissions . Breyer said he will wait until after this session of SCOTUS is concluded sparing his successor the conflict of interest .

another thing I like about Childs is that she is not a product of the Ivy towers .

Plus, Childs is very pretty with sparkly eyes and a sweet smile.

bachelor’s degree in management from the University of South Florida, 1988

master’s degree in personnel and employment relations from the University of South Carolina School of Business, 1991.

Juris Doctor from the University of South Carolina School of Law, also 1991

Master of Laws in judicial studies from the Duke University School of Law, 2016

I will ignore the superficial qualifiers.

Schmucky said Thursday that the Senate will move quickly on the nominee to replace Breyer – and that it will treat that person fairly.(as opposed to the Kavanaugh treatment )
"The Senate will have a fair process that moves quickly so we can confirm President Biden’s nominee to fill Justice Breyer’s seat as soon as possible,"

Has Breyer officially given notice?

Ah, I guess so --

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer (https://news.yahoo.com/breyer-to-retire-from-supreme-court-171756901.html) formally submitted his resignation letter to President Biden on Thursday, a day after multiple media outlets reported (https://news.yahoo.com/breyer-to-retire-from-supreme-court-171756901.html) his decision to retire from the nation's high court.
In the letter, the 83-year-old Breyer said he will step down at the end of the court's current term, assuming his successor has been nominated and confirmed. The next term begins on Oct. 3.
https://news.yahoo.com/read-supreme-court-justice-stephen-breyers-resignation-letter-174830680.html

According to Tom, all of Biden's picks are unconstitutional. It should therefore be a simple matter to sue to prevent Biden picking who he picked. Stand by.

Racial and gender qualification for the Court is unconstitutional . Geeze ,Clueless talks about going back to Jim Crow days . Well there you have it .Racial and gender preference are against the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment .

It is Clueless who is being unfair to his nominee and his pick will now have an asterisk attached to the selection. I may disagree with all their policies and views on interpretation of the constitution and the role of the court. But all of them look qualified to sit on the court regardless of their race or gender . To place that qualifier on the selection is unfair to them and unconstitutional .

Racial and gender qualification for the Court is unconstitutional .

I repeat: It should therefore be a simple matter to sue to prevent Biden picking who he picked. Stand by.

<sarc> Yeah suing Clueless to prevent the "first Black Female " from being seated on the court is a great plan .</sarc>

How did a woman get on the SC for the first time?

O'Connor was on a diverse short list of candidates that included Robert Bork, Dallin H. Oaks, Malcolm R. Wilkey, Philip B. Kurland, and Edwin Meese III .Reagan pledged to nominate a woman with one of his selections . He never promised that it would be his 1st pick or that he would only consider a woman.

He never promised that it would be his 1st pick or that he would only consider a woman.

Here is what Reagan said:

“I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find. … It is time for a woman to sit among the highest jurists.”

Parse that and say Reagan didn't do the same thing Biden is doing.

'one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find.'

Exactly what I said .

"Reagan pledged to nominate a woman with one of his selections . "

He did not pledge to make a woman his 1st pick and he vetted 5 other candidates who weren't a woman on his 1st short list . Big difference . The claim that Reagan made the same pledge to only consider a woman for his first vacancy is patently false .

During the Dem debate Clueless made two pledges ,and asked his opponent to do the same .....to nominate only a black woman for the next open Supreme Court seat and to choose a woman as his vice president.
Such exclusionary criteria has been identified by SCOTUS as discriminatory a number of times .

Breyer in his last days on the court will hear 2 such cases . Previously he was in the majority opinion that this was unacceptable discrimination.

The claim that Reagan made the same pledge to only consider a woman for his first vacancy is patently false .

What part of this did you miss?

“I am announcing today that one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled by the most qualified woman I can possibly find. … It is time for a woman to sit among the highest jurists.”

Both pledged to nominate a woman. Period. Your nit-picking semantics cannot change that simple fact.

what part of this did you miss ?

one of the first Supreme Court vacancies


Show me on Clueless ' short list the male or any other candidate besides a Black female . It is you playing semantics games .
Reagan considered other qualified candidates without racial or sexual preferences . Clueless will not .

what part of this did you miss ?

one of the first Supreme Court vacancies
"...in my administration will be filled by..." a WOMAN

Want me to diagram that sentence for you too?

dot dot dot changes context doesn't it

what part of this did you miss ?

one of the first Supreme Court vacancies


So? Is that a promise of appointing a woman or not?

For the last time (post 39)

Grutter v. Bollinger :in 2003 SCOTUS decided that if multiple candidates were equally qualified then other qualifiers like race and gender could be a determining factor.

Same year in Gratz v. Bollinger SCOTUS decided that if race or other factors that were discriminatory under Bakke were the first qualifiers then it was unconstitutional .

That's the difference .

For the last time (post 39)

Grutter v. Bollinger :in 2003 SCOTUS decided that if multiple candidates were equally qualified then other qualifiers like race and gender could be a determining factor.

Same year in Gratz v. Bollinger SCOTUS decided that if race or other factors that were discriminatory under Bakke were the first qualifiers then it was unconstitutional .

That's the difference .

There is NO difference between Reagan and Biden on the issue. You are misapplying court decisions to a circumstance where they don't apply. The cited cases are concerned with affirmative action at a university - not remotely with the issue at hand.

I can't put it any simpler: they both promised to nominate a woman to the SC. One was white, the other black. Reagan did not promise to select his woman candidate after considering others. He said only that his candidate would be the most qualified woman he could find and that it was time for a woman jurist.

Plenty of difference. Clueless confirmed that he will refuse to consider potential nominees simply because of their race and sex. He uses race and sex as his SOLE selection criteria for top government posts. He made that clear during his campaign, saying that he would use race and sex as his baseline criteria for picking his vice president and cabinet.

His hiring practices has brought us back to the days when there were signs on windows saying "(pick the race ;nationality ;gender ) need not apply" Heck ;in Cluless' America ,Stephen Breyer need not apply .

He did not even couch his comments in terms like "better diversity " . He openly and proudly proclaimed his hires will be limited to a Black Female .

Lincoln and MLK spoke of a society where race was not a factor ;an America that lives up to the creed that all people are created equal. Clueless' neo-racist and sexist criteria to pick people for government leadership post is completely anti-American.

In Clueless Joe's America ; Thurgood Marshall need not apply.

Turns out that only considering black women is a solidly unpopular idea. It's about as crazy an idea as REFUSING to consider black women.


More than three-quarters (76%) of Americans want President Joe Biden (https://www.foxnews.com/category/person/joe-biden) to consider all potential nominees to replace outgoing Supreme Court (https://www.foxnews.com/category/politics/judiciary/supreme-court) Justice Stephen Breyer, according to a recent ABC News-Ipsos poll (https://abcnews.go.com/US/majority-americans-biden-nominees-supreme-court-vacancy-poll/story?id=82553398&cid=social_twitter_abcn).

The poll comes after Biden said (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-nominate-black-woman-supreme-court-february) Thursday that he will announce his nominee (https://www.foxnews.com/category/politics/senate) before the end of February, and that the candidate will be a Black woman. Among Democrats (https://www.foxnews.com/category/politics/elections/democrats), 54% supported considering all nominees regardless of race and gender. Just 23% of those polled wanted Biden to restrict his list of nominees to Black women.


The poll, which was conducted Jan. 28-29 with Ipsos Public Affairs' KnowledgePanel among a random national sample of 510 adults, also found that 43% believe that the Supreme Court is partisan, and that justices rule "on the basis of their partisan political views."

Other finding from the poll were unflattering toward the president, who earned low approval numbers on issues ranging from inflation — with 69% disapproving — to surging crime and gun violence. Just 1% of those polled said the state of the economy is "excellent."

Biden's Supreme Court announcement follows through on a pledge he made during the 2020 campaign. When his campaign was faltering during the 2020 Democratic primary in South Carolina, Biden reportedly told (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-promised-clyburn-to-nominate-black-woman-to-scotus) Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., he would publicly promise to appoint a Black woman to the high court in exchange for the House majority whip's endorsement.

Biden's decision has been criticized by those who claim he is allowing identity politics to seep into the Supreme Court. Last week, Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Dr. Ben Carson told WMAL (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dr-ben-carson-slams-biden-for-abominable-identity-politics-on-scotus-pick) that "to create that kind of situation in the highest court in the land is really abominable, and very detrimental to our freedoms."


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/poll-huge-majority-americans-biden-consider-all-nominees-supreme-court-pick

Senator Mazie Hirono said on MSNBC another threshold litmus test she will hold for her support of the nominee . She wants the justice to go beyond what the law says, in order to do what is right......."someone who will consider the impact, the effects of whatever decision-making is on people in our country so that they are not making decisions just based on — which I would like them to base it on law, which would be nice, and precedent, and who are not eagerly trying to get rid of decades of precedent that would protect a woman’s right to choose, for example, and voting rights, et cetera. But I’d like a justice who also will take into consideration the real-life impact of the decisions he or she will be making.”

Democrat Hirono: I'm looking for a justice who doesn't make decisions just based on law... - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaX3MGrZxJQ)

The only criteria a judge should be is 'what does the law say ' and ' is the law constitutional' . Life experience is irrelevant .

Hirono of course dismissed Amy Coney Barrett due to her 'too Catholic' beliefs . Others somehow equated her adoption adoption of 2 Haitian children as 'white colonialism' . Barrett emphasized during her confirmation hearing that she had no personal agenda . Evidently in Hirono's mind that is a disqualifier .

I would like them to base it on law, which would be nice,So it would be "nice" to base decisions on the law? And this person is actually an elected U.S. senator?