[tomder55]

'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.

[Athos]

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.

[tomder55]

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 .

[Wondergirl]

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?

[tomder55]

dot dot dot changes context doesn't it

[Athos]

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?

[tomder55]

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 .

[Athos]

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.

[tomder55]

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.

[tomder55]

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

[jlisenbe]

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 to consider all potential nominees to replace outgoing Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, according to a recent ABC News-Ipsos poll.

The poll comes after Biden said Thursday that he will announce his nominee before the end of February, and that the candidate will be a Black woman. Among 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 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 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/pol...eme-court-pick

[tomder55]

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

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 .

[jlisenbe]

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?