Breyer to retire

WSJ Breyer to retire

Breyer retiring while he still has his health is a little bit of a surprise, but I guess he can see a GOP Senate coming long into the future. Fair enough, Biden will get to make his appointment.

Biden has already promised an affirmative action pick, a Black woman. At least he has promised to choose from among sitting judges.

I hope at least it’s not another towering pile of partisan ignorance like Sotomayor.

37 thoughts on “Breyer to retire

  1. “I hope at least it’s not another towering pile of partisan ignorance like Sotomayor.”

    Typically ugly and stupid observation.
    Disagreeing with your anachronistic world view is not a sign of ignorance. The opposite, in fact.

    Besides, Justice Sotomayor is a towering pile of intellect compared with any of Trump’s appointees. Not to mention propriety.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Laughable reason to accuse someone of towering ignorance. If these few errors and maybe wrong tenses qualify her for your slanders, what does that say about Donald Trump?

        It is not worth double-checking such minor points of fact, but anything posted on the Daily Wire is suspect. I also noted that their “analysis” cited as evidence chatter on Twitter.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. RE: “Biden has already promised an affirmative action pick, a Black woman.”

    I want to know why a one-legged lesbian dwarf wouldn’t qualify as an affirmative action pick. Let her be black, if you want, just not bi-pedal, heterosexual and tall.

    Like

  3. Don’t qualifications mean anything anymore? Isn’t it discrimination to pick a black woman over a more qualified white male purely based on skin color and sex? Discrimitation to the highest extent? Oh, it’s all ok if if the victim is a white male, right?? I am so sick of liberal puke’s obvious pandering for votes. Makes one want to…puke?? It is truly amazing and obvious how hard Democrats are trying to create a perfect storm of phony “revelations” right at midterm elections too.

    Like

    1. RE: “Isn’t it discrimination to pick a black woman over a more qualified white male purely based on skin color and sex?”

      I think so. Stumble Joe’s mistake lies in announcing skin color and sex as the selection criteria in advance. Even if you believe that something about a black female would be good to have on the Supreme Court, other factors also apply.

      We are correct to want better from a president.

      Like

      1. Elections have consequences. Get over it. President Biden did not “announce” what he would do in this regard if he had a chance. He promised it, he ran on it, and he won. And, it was a winning issue because it is long past due.

        The nomination will be of a very highly qualified person. So, you folks can stop weeping and gnashing your teeth over that mythical better-qualified white male candidate getting short shift because of “reverse discrimination.” Or, at least wait to see what her qualifications are before starting your whining.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “Elections have consequences.”

          Bad ones in this case.

          Given Stumble Joe’s appointments record, the nomination will likely go to a remarkably incompetent person, maybe even Kamala Harris.

          Like

    2. What’s truly tragic is that now, even if Biden chooses a truly qualified and competent nominee, she will forever be seen as an affirmative action pick and not one based on merit.

      Like

      1. Was the same thing said of RBG? Kagan? Sotomayor? O’Connor?

        Based on your history, no matter who Biden selects, he or she will not be qualified in your mind. You disqualified Garland because of a single issue. In a single case.

        As far as merit goes, if the Heritage Foundation stands against the nominee, I am all for it. They don’t necessarily list based on merit; they lists based on if they agree with previous opinions.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. And as AG, Garland has proven himself to eb the partisan shill I suspected.

          Remember that it was a single case in which he placed his personal political views ahead of the precedent in the SCOTUS ruling in Heller.

          But no, I don’t expect Biden to nominate a conservative. I do expect he at least nominates someone who understands SCOTUS rules on law, not policy.

          Like

          1. …”Garland has proven himself to eb the partisan shill I suspected.”

            1) How so? Because he is investigating and prosecuting criminal acts (via US Attorneys.) Unlike his predecessor who was trying to find ways to prosecute his boss’s political enemies?

            2) The AG job is MUCH different than SCOTUS.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. “Both are supposed to seek justice before party.”

            SCOTUS doesn’t necessarily rule on justice; they rule on Constitutionality.

            So by that accounting, Garland, as AG, should ignore criminal activity just because it was perpetrated by others outside of his “party”?

            Garland is doing the job of AG as it is supposed to be: INDEPENDENTLY of POTUS. Trump appointed AG’s were all about serving him and not he country.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Typical GOP victimhood bullshit. Comes from the same sad mindset which says that the January 6th insurrectionists are being persecuted.

            If you think you have some inherent right to threaten and intimidate public officials without consequences, then you are wrong. In this case, the FBI responded to serious concerns formally expressed by a non-partisan and respected organization of School Boards. The October 4th Directive from Garland – which your source links to – was ENTIRELY appropriate and was egregiously mischaracterized by the propagandists at Reason.

            This is NOT an example of putting party over justice. When did you lose your critical thinking skills?

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Really?

            So you would have been OK with Trump sending the FBI to investigate Black Churches for illegal political activity a month before the Presidential election?

            Like

          5. You mean like illegal electors, paper coup attempts, and other things related to 2020? Notice how some of those things are just NOW coming out?

            Trump’s DOJ was tasked with many things that had zero to do with justice. It was all about Trump. Period.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. “So you would have been OK with Trump sending the FBI to investigate Black Churches for illegal political activity a month before the Presidential election?”

            “Political activity” is hardly analogous to people threatening School Boards and teachers and rampaging at public meetings about masks and Critical Race Theory.

            Did you read the actual message from AG Garland?
            What did YOU find to be objectionable in it?

            Who did they investigate?
            Answer: No one. The memo called for convening meetings with local officials to strategize an appropriate local response to criminal behavior. And the final target date for such meetings was AFTER the election

            It is very telling that you consider planning responses to threatened political violence to be partisan.

            Like

          7. “Something like that would get out”

            Now that is a funny argument from someone who thinks a massive conspiracy to steal a Presidential election is something that could be hidden. And, in fact, was.

            Like

          8. “Do you understand what is meant by a ‘chilling effect?”

            I believe that I do. And so does AG Garland.

            His words from the memo that has your hair on fire: “The Department takes these incidents seriously and is committed to using its authority and resources to discourage these threats, identify them when they occur, and prosecute them when appropriate.”

            See, he wants to have a “chilling effect” on these people, who as Trump followers, think the law does not matter nor apply to them. It does. I hope they get the message. Political violence and threats of violence are terrorism, and we have no place for terrorism in our country.

            Like

      2. Whether he announced his intentions or not, a Black jurist would always be smeared with “well, honey, you know how she got there, don’t you?”. It is just the way some folks are.

        Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.”― Charlotte Whitton

        The same holds true for other groups on the margins. And if they do succeed, they are uppity.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. . . . they are uppity.”

          Or “arrogant” or “corrupt.”

          Looking back at what our “conservatives” have written:

          How many times did we hear those applied to truly arrogant and corrupt Donald Trump? Never.
          And about the truly modest and painfully honest Barack Obama? Dozens of times.

          Liked by 1 person

    3. A little history for you.

      Saint Ronald also promised to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court. That was in October 1980, and it helped boost his campaign with women.

      And sure enough, he did, by-passing hundreds of better-qualified men on the federal judiciary to pull Sandra Day O’Connor from the Arizona courts where she had been for only a few years after a career as a Republican politician.

      Liked by 1 person

    4. Two things:

      You should see someone about your illness.

      Who is the white male she would push aside for the nomination? I didn’t know there was one.

      Maybe the white male that Amy Coney Barrett shoved aside?

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s