Plan B Forum

Well, it's been about two weeks since Justice Stephen Beyer announced that he would be resigning and stepping down from his seat on the bench of the Supreme Court, to be effective sometime in mid-2022.  Much of the focus since then has been on Biden's pledge that he would nominate a black female to the Supreme Court.

While I don't doubt that there are black female members of the judiciary who would certainly be qualified, I feel that a flat statement like that, while well-intentioned, shows bias anyway.  The court should be made up of nine people who are sworn to impartially interpret the law and decide the cases set before them, not a group formed by selecting "one from column A and one from column B" or ticking off boxes on a diversity checklist.  However, he DID make the statement and he has painted himself into a corner because of it.  If his first choice ISN'T a black female, he'll be raked over the coals unmercifully, by Democrats and Republicans alike.

I do see one other course open to him, though.  Back in March of 2016, Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.  We all know what happened — a Republican-dominated Senate flat-out refused to vote to confirm or even hold hearings on his nomination, using the tissue paper-thin excuse that because Obama was a second-term president who would be replaced following the 2016 elections,

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,"

meaning that the privilege of selecting the new Justice should fall to whomever won the 2016 election.  As we all know, despite losing the popular vote, D.J. (Dishonest John) Trump prevailed in the Electoral College, and his nomination of Neil Gorsuch for the open position was quickly rubber-stamped by his Republican sycophants with a speed not seen since the German blitzkrieg rolled across Europe.

I suggest that Biden first offer the position to Mr. Garland, explaining as he does so that this is merely the righting of an earlier wrong, as Garland was originally nominated to the Supreme Court six years earlier and it was only through the machinations of the McConnell Mob that he hadn't been on the bench since that time.  I am aware that Garland was appointed by Biden to the Cabinet-level post of Attorney General and he may not want to give that up, but I believe that he should have the privilege of "first refusal" and let him make that decision for himself.  If he does opt to remain in place as the AG, THEN let Biden honor his pledge to name a qualified black female to the Supreme Court.

Then all we have to worry about are the 2022 elections.  The Republicans already have shown that they are perfectly willing to shirk their duties and play for a stalemate, hoping that they can take back their Senate majority in November, and then go into full spoiled-brat-in-a-tantrum roadblock mode.  What's to say that they won't try it again?

-"BB"-

I suggest that Biden first offer the position to Mr. Garland, explaining as he does so that this is merely the righting of an earlier wrong.

By pledging to appoint a Black woman, the earlier wrongs that he is righting are the 115 times that an appointment has been made to SCOTUS, exactly none of which were Black women. 230 years of sexism and racism. Too little and too late but it's a start. Merrick Garland has a job.

I’m a bit disappointed in Merrick Garland as AG, but I’m keeping an open mind and waiting to see what indictments he ultimately pursues on the January 6 insurrection.

Beyond that, I agree with Andy’s assessment and would further add that it would be nice for Biden to appoint a fully qualified black woman in her 50s. At nearly 70, Garland is now too old for my taste - not because he’s in any way incompetent to be a justice at his age, but because the younger the justice the longer they’ll have influence on the court. Amy Coney-Barrett is only 50 years old and will need to be counterbalanced for decades to come.

I would say appoint a fully qualified black woman in her 30s, and do the same for every vacancy in the lower courts.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 3:31 am

I would say appoint a fully qualified black woman in her 30s, and do the same for every vacancy in the lower courts.

That’s a nice sentiment but I really don’t think a person of any creed or color can be sufficiently qualified for the SCOTUS in their 30s in this day/age. At a minimum I would think mid 40s - and a few on Biden’s short list of black women candidates are in their mid 40s.

Back in the very early days of SCOTUS there were a few younger justices in their 30s, the youngest being a 32 year old Joseph Story from Massachusetts, named to the court in the early 1800s. He was a justice of great consequence, in particular known for his reasoning in the famous Amistad decision.

Incidentally, in the movie of that case he is played by retired Justice Harry Blackmun, just two years before his death.

Also incidentally, I went to see that movie following a final exam in my first year of law school in DC, and watched it with a classmate and a theater full of black DC high school students on a class field trip. That was an experience I’ll always remember. (Unless I get Alzheimer’s.) If anyone on this board missed that film, they should rectify that oversight ASAP.

Scooter wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 3:31 am

I would say appoint a fully qualified white woman in her 30s, and do the same for every vacancy in the lower courts.

A bit racist that.

Except that one is about balancing a glaring inequity that currently exists, and the other is a completely false equivalence, but ok.

I agree, Biden should nominate a well-qualified black woman.

I would suggest Janice Rogers-Brown, but I'm pretty sure she retired and probably doesn't want to move to the DC area. (She lives in California.)

Yes she’s retired and thank goodness for that! The last thing the judiciary needs is a Lochnerian Ayn Rand adherent - she’s too far out there for many conservatives, so of course she must be the darling of some cohort of Trumpism.

The court is conservative enough as it is, and of course nobody should realistically expect Biden to nominate someone less progressive than Breyer.

But then you were being intentionally disingenuous. And yes, I’m very glad that Biden was instrumental in blocking Rogers-Brown from becoming the first black woman nominated to be a justice on the SCOTUS, as that would have been a huge leap backward for black women in this country.

IMNSHO, Clarence Thomas is the poster boy for the 'good n----- who knows his place' It took him what, ten years to decide it was acceptable to speak in the presence of all those white guys in black robes during oral argument before the Supremes. As far as I know, he is the only black man who went home and had dinner with his family after he was lynched.

Hindsight is always better, but clearly more should have listened to Dr. Anita Hill during the acceptance hearings. My only hope is now statistical. Justice Thomas is in his 70's, looks overweight, and he is part of the population that is way more susceptible to diabetes, heart troubles, high blood pressure, and even Covid.

snailgate.

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 9:50 pm

My only hope is now statistical. Justice Thomas is in his 70's, looks overweight, and he is part of the population that is way more susceptible to diabetes, heart troubles, high blood pressure, and even Covid.

This is true, BUT - unlike the vast majority of black men in America, Thomas has access to all the first rate cutting edge medical care he could possibly need, and nobody will be discriminating against him once he’s in the doctor’s office, either.

Thurgood Marshall lived to be 84, so did Colin Powell. The averages in statistics on longevity are only so useful, and those who are higher educated and in higher income brackets almost always outlive the averages. Better quality of life, less stress, better access to healthcare. While I won’t cry when Thomas croaks, I don’t expect it to happen anytime soon.

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Wed Feb 09, 2022 9:50 pm

IMNSHO, Clarence Thomas is the poster boy for the 'good n----- who knows his place' It took him what, ten years to decide it was acceptable to speak in the presence of all those white guys in black robes during oral argument before the Supremes. As far as I know, he is the only black man who went home and had dinner with his family after he was lynched.

Hindsight is always better, but clearly more should have listened to Dr. Anita Hill during the acceptance hearings. My only hope is now statistical. Justice Thomas is in his 70's, looks overweight, and he is part of the population that is way more susceptible to diabetes, heart troubles, high blood pressure, and even Covid.

snailgate.

Every time I think I've seen rock bottom, someone fires up a jackhammer and posts a jewel like this.

'Course rock bottom is where the best foundation should be pinned. Jaraxle, I would be pleased to read your panegyric for Justice Thomas.

I would really love to see proof that my opinion in the second sentence above is without factual support. I admit that the first sentence is only my conclusion from objective evidence which is open to other explanation. I cheerfully confess I am unqualified to use the N word. But Thomas is fully qualified by experience and history to know what a lynching is.

snailgate

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:47 pm

I admit that the first sentence is only my conclusion from objective evidence which is open to other explanation. I cheerfully confess I am unqualified to use the N word. But Thomas is fully qualified by experience and history to know what a lynching is.

Well FWIW (not much) I think your first sentence is a racist remark, whatever your intent. What did "lynching" have to do with it - that was lib's beef about Ken Quizzy's support of those who wanted to remove Kavanaugh. Again FWIW, those "other explanations" you mentioned are not noticeably race-based:

If Thomas’ silence was the result of self-consciousness or “introversion” (as he himself has sometimes hinted), well, we could use more of those qualities at the top. I’m so sick of narcissists in public life who think that no subject has been adequately discussed until they themselves have participated in the droning and blathering. A little humility never hurt anyone. Maybe I should think about this one seriously

For the record, I abhor Thomas’ politics — he’s far, far to the right of me — but he was onto something when he suggested that the rapid-fire questions with which the other justices interrupt attorneys in the middle of their arguments are often rude, sometimes disruptive and perhaps even unnecessary. “Let the advocates advocate,” he once said. Too often, Thomas once said, “we look like Family Feud.”

Maybe this is a just a game show measuring contest?

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... -arguments

There's an NY times piece out there that's relevant too, from 2016:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/p ... homas.html

Yes, My remark was RACIST!. RACE is an American cultural reality. It will continue to be so as long as polite public discourse ends at the declaration 'that is racist.' Just as racially discriminating behavior remains unchanged when the words 'Chink' or 'Polack" are exchanged for other modifiers.

Thomas called his Senate hearings a lynching, and then went home to dinner with his family. When Thomas' career before he joined the Supremes is examined, it is worthy of comparison with the careers of the house servants in the deep South prior to 1860. Mr Thomas is not a product of that culture. Yet, he appears to have followed all the life-style advice of Booker T. Washington, not Malcom X or ML King Jr. Mr. Thomas does not appear willing to give his life to the betterment of anyone beyond himself. That is not a racist judgement, but a general judgement of American character today.

snailgate

I see. Yes, now you mention it I seem to recall a remark comparing the hearing to a lynching. Silly man. Forgot about that.

Even so, I find looking for a racist explanation (rather than the considered opinion of various organs of information and the man himself) to be invidious. Would that more people held their tongue rather than holding forth, eh? Sometimes anyway.

If Thomas’ silence was the result of self-consciousness or “introversion” (as he himself has sometimes hinted), well, we could use more of those qualities at the top.  I’m so sick of narcissists ... who think that no subject has been adequately discussed until they themselves have participated in the droning and blathering.
....from the LA Times editorial ... https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2 ... -arguments

Boy oh boy, if that phrase doesn't describe a certain East-Coaster on this board, I don't know what does.

-"BB"-

Burning Petard wrote: ↑

Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:47 pm

'Course rock bottom is where the best foundation should be pinned. Jaraxle, I would be pleased to read your panegyric for Justice Thomas.

I would really love to see proof that my opinion in the second sentence above is without factual support. I admit that the first sentence is only my conclusion from objective evidence which is open to other explanation. I cheerfully confess I am unqualified to use the N word. But Thomas is fully qualified by experience and history to know what a lynching is.

snailgate

Not everyone speaks to hear his own gums flap at every opportunity. Introverts are a thing.