Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    25,702
    Thanks (Given)
    29631
    Thanks (Received)
    16592
    Likes (Given)
    2576
    Likes (Received)
    2319
    Mentioned
    56 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475202

    Default Biden's First Judicial Nominees a Sign of What's to Come | Opinion

    Newsweek
    Biden's First Judicial Nominees a Sign of What's to Come | Opinion
    Ilya Shapiro 2 hrs ago


    When President Joe Biden announced his first slate of judicial nominees last week, all the media attention was on his identity politics. All three picks for federal circuit courts were black women. If confirmed, we would also have the first Muslim district judge, the first Asian American on the D.C. district court and the first "woman of color" district judge in Maryland. As the White House press release crowed, "the federal bench should reflect the full diversity of the American people."

    a group of people walking in front of United States Supreme Court Building: A security guard walks in front of the U.S. Supreme Court Building as two President Trump supporters take pictures of each other near the U.S. Capitol on January 7, 2021 in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court will meet Friday to discuss whether to take up a case about concealed carry.© Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images A security guard walks in front of the U.S. Supreme Court Building as two President Trump supporters take pictures of each other near the U.S. Capitol on January 7, 2021 in Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court will meet Friday to discuss whether to take up a case about concealed carry.
    That's nothing new. Going back to Jimmy Carter's focus on "representativeness," Democratic presidents have touted demographics ahead of most other considerations when it comes to judicial nominations. Carter's attorney general, Griffin Bell, once testified that "Mr. Carter was prepared to appoint to the Federal Bench a black, Hispanic, or woman lawyer who was found to be less qualified than a white male as long as the appointee was found qualified." The president admitted as much in a December 1978 press conference: "If I didn't have to get Senate confirmation of appointees, I could tell you flatly that twelve percent of my judicial appointments would be black and three percent would be Spanish-speaking, and forty percent would be women, and so forth."


    Left-wing 'woke' politics being 'crammed down our throats': Former diplomat

    The next Democratic president, Bill Clinton, broadened that commitment, and Barack Obama went even further. Both would be criticized, however, for appointing judges who weren't as jurisprudentially strong as the Republican appointees they'd be dueling with, which is of course the downside of a focus on demographics. Indeed, Obama would've gone even further in his judicial affirmative action had the American Bar Association not warned that it would rate many of his candidates "not qualified" if he formally nominated them. That's why Biden ended the ABA's privileged pre-screening role, matching Republican practice going back decades.


    An interesting wrinkle to that delicate search for both diversity and quality is that many Democratic appointees, including judges "of color," have been either prosecutors or corporate lawyers. Those experiences make jurists more moderate and deferential to law enforcement—not exactly the progressive avatars that the party's base demands. Indeed, when Biden was pressured to put out a list of potential Supreme Court nominees during the presidential campaign—he never did, because whoever he named would hurt him with either his base or swing voters—the activist group Demand Justice put out a 32-name "shortlist." The list drew attacks for its radicalism, and the group later expanded it to 43 names to reflect political realities.

    One of the names missing from Demand Justice's initial list was D.C. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, now Biden's pick to fill the D.C. Circuit opening created by Merrick Garland's confirmation as attorney general. Demand Justice left Jackson off at first because of her corporate experience. That's ironic, because even though she has a mixed reputation as a judge, with several prominent reversals, her ideological bona fides have never been in doubt. Moreover, her highly credentialed legal career included a two-year stint as a federal public defender.

    Two other Biden nominees were also public defenders, two more were likewise criminal defense attorneys and another was an army JAG. So it seems that excluding ABA pre-screening—the group will still formally evaluate the picks post-announcement—does allow for the consideration of nontraditional backgrounds, a long-overdue move.

    Of course, given that the legal profession has for decades skewed leftward, particularly at its elite levels, Democratic presidents have long had more margin for error than their Republican counterparts, with or without ABA approval. As Republicans struggle for "no more [David] Souters"—or John Robertses—Democrats know they'll generally get the rulings they want on expansive federal regulations or progressive social goals. They can afford to focus on identity politics rather than ideology. The reason President Trump didn't appoint many black female judges wasn't racism or misogyny, but that there just aren't many originalists or textualists who check those demographic boxes.

    Biden's first group of nominees was designed to go down easy; they're all headed for courts in D.C. or states with two Democratic senators, so there's no concern about blue slips or other political blips. That's largely going to continue, since most judicial vacancies are in blue states where senators didn't want to play ball with the Trump White House or then-majority leader Mitch McConnell. Or where judges waited until Biden was elected to announce their retirements.

    quote

    "That's nothing new. Going back to Jimmy Carter's focus on "representativeness," Democratic presidents have touted demographics ahead of most other considerations when it comes to judicial nominations. Carter's attorney general, Griffin Bell, once testified that "Mr. Carter was prepared to appoint to the Federal Bench a black, Hispanic, or woman lawyer who was found to be less qualified than a white male as long as the appointee was found qualified." The president admitted as much in a December 1978 press conference: "If I didn't have to get Senate confirmation of appointees, I could tell you flatly that twelve percent of my judicial appointments would be black and three percent would be Spanish-speaking, and forty percent would be women, and so forth."
    And here we see exactly what the dem party is-- Tyr
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    64,477
    Thanks (Given)
    7177
    Thanks (Received)
    30711
    Likes (Given)
    5050
    Likes (Received)
    6093
    Mentioned
    462 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475654

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post
    And here we see exactly what the dem party is-- Tyr
    Everything is about votes and power. They are willing to put someone in ultimate power, based on their skin color or sex.

    In what other place in this world can decisions be made like that? What if any other employer in the USA were to hire or fire someone based on their skin color or sex? That's right, they get sued, and they get fined, as doing so is against the law. But it's ok to do with the highest office in the land?

    And then the next question you ask yourself is why?

    How do they benefit from someone less qualified? Votes in their favor? Perhaps, and that's normal. But perhaps it's as much, or more, about impressing upon the skin color of those folks or their sex - so that others may support them that match either of those.
    How do you catch a unique rabbit? Unique up on him! (was my Mom's favorite joke )

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums