The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Old Time Politics
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the Daily Mail:

Joe Biden reportedly promised House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn during the 2020 campaign that he would nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court – something that angers Republicans who claim a selection should not be based on race or gender.

Democrats, however, claim it’s about time that a black woman serves on the Supreme Court after news emerged prematurely Wednesday that liberal Justice Stephen Breyer is retiring.

Biden performed poorly in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primaries and needed a boost in South Carolina in February 2020 to help clinch the nomination to take on Donald Trump.

Clyburn, who previously chaired the Congressional Black Caucus, offered his endorsement but with a caveat – that the then-candidate publicly pledge to place a black woman on the Supreme Court should he get the chance in his tenure.

Journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes detail in their book Lucky that Clyburn pow-wowed with Biden during a break in the Democratic debate on February 25, 2020. The lawmaker was becoming increasingly frustrated that Biden had not promised on the debate stage to nominate a black female Supreme Court justice after speaking on the issue the night before.

Allen explained Clyburn’s words to Biden at the time: ‘He says, ‘Look, I told you that I wanted you to say that you were going to name a Black woman to the Supreme Court. You haven’t done it yet. You’ve had a bunch of opportunities. Don’t you dare leave this stage without doing it.’

Clyburn told CNN on Wednesday that he did inform Biden he should address the issue of no black woman ever serving on the Supreme Court as a way to bolster his support among the black community – especially in South Carolina. …

Well, that’s old time politics, with an emphasis on “old.” Conceding a Supreme Court nomination in return for an endorsement has been done before. It’s much like the 1824 “Corrupt Bargain” between JQ Adams and Henry Clay over the Secretary of State job the kept Andrew Jackson out of the White House for four years: basic politics.

The specific problem with this bargain was a more subtle one: Kingmaker Clyburn is a couple of years older than even Biden, but is still serving as the third-ranking Democrat in the House. So he has a vested interest in not taking a gimlet eye to whether a fellow old-timer like Biden is still up to the job.

As for the affirmative action implicit in Biden’s bargain, sure, but let’s keep in mind that Supreme Court nominations are not really all that much like affirmative action in normal jobs. Supreme Court openings are so rare and so desirable that a President can likely come up with somebody plausible no matter how restrictive your preferred demographic. GHW Bush even came up with a satisfactory black Republican.

In contrast, typical selection is a statistical question under conditions of scarcity, so affirmative action has a much different impact. You shouldn’t reason from affirmative action at where you work to the Supreme Court, and, more importantly, Supreme Court justices shouldn’t reason from Supreme Court-style affirmative action to the rest of America.

An interesting question about a Supreme Court justice is how important is competence? It’s embarrassing for a lesser court judge to repeatedly get overturned by higher courts, but when you are on the highest court that can’t happen.

Presumably, having a smart guy like Breyer on Team Democrat might benefit the team in the occasional argument. And it could even be that a Breyer would have more foresight about what’s good for the country than a Sotomayor. But most of the time, Supreme Court decisions come down to whether Team Democrat is bigger or smaller than Team Republican, so it’s hard to see competence being all that crucial in a nominee.

In contrast, competence matters for sure in tens of millions of other jobs.

 
Hide 145 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Clyburn told CNN on Wednesday that he did inform Biden he should address the issue of no black woman ever serving on the Supreme Court

    Is Justice Sotomayor not a Black woman? If she is from Puerto Rico, she probably is of African descent.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @anon

    Is Rita Moreno black? Doubt it.

    One drop rule is not realistic.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    , @SF
    @anon

    Sotomayor looks about as black as Kamala Harris, and more black than Megan Markle, both of whom are about 1/4 or a little more African. Somewhere I read that the average Puerto Rican is 29% African and 9% indigenous, although I can't find the link for that exact number. (Maybe in one of Steve's old columns)
    If it weren't for the cultural differences, Sotomayor would have no problem being accepted as African-American.

    Replies: @PaceLaw

  2. Judges are not rated by how often they’re overturned. That is just the cost of doing business. The true test of a good judge is how often they are cited by other judges.

    • Replies: @megabar
    @anon

    > The true test of a good judge is how often they are cited by other judges.

    This argument is used in science, too (e.g. impact factor for journals). But it is quite fallible, as a metric. P0pularity and positive feedback is a real thing, and hard to override in the absence of hard external correction.

    Steve's point is that there is no hard external correction for a Supreme Court judge.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  3. The specific problem is that if I believe the supreme court has become unfit for purpose I cannot unsubscribe.

    This means it faces strong incentives to become unfit for purpose – corruption is profitable – and no incentive to remain in working order. The result is inevitable and it’s already well-known to everyone who has heard of public choice theory.

    The institution is not offering a deal, it is merely attempting to impose its values on me by force. In game theory we can see this forms a defection cell in the prisoner’s dilemma. They could offer me a product in exchange for compensation, but they have instead chosen to secure the compensation without having to offer a product.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @PhysicistDave
    @Alrenous

    Alrenous wrote:


    This means [the Supreme Court] faces strong incentives to become unfit for purpose – corruption is profitable – and no incentive to remain in working order. The result is inevitable and it’s already well-known to everyone who has heard of public choice theory.
     
    Yeah, though there is an interesting wrinkle here.

    I do not know of any Supreme Court justice in US history selling out for money.

    What they do tend to sell out for is appreciation from the "right sort" of people: people they may meet at DC parties, journalists, law professors, the people likely to write histories of the Court, etc.

    Interestingly, Clarence Thomas seems not to give a damn about any of that.

    The one good thing GHW Bush did.

    Replies: @Joe Magarac, @J.Ross, @Alrenous, @Achmed E. Newman

  4. A progressive friend told me the Republicans should have allowed Merrick Garland to get a seat on the Supreme Court “because he is a moderate.” I told my friend it didn’t matter if a Democratic appointee was a moderate or and extremist, since on any political charged issue the Democratic justices all march in lockstep. For the same reason, it doesn’t matter if a Democratic nominee is brilliant or a unqualified affirmative-action hire.

    • Replies: @Thirdtwin
    @Harry Baldwin

    “…it doesn’t matter if a Democratic nominee is brilliant or a unqualified affirmative-action hire.”

    True, and if the Dem justices are in the minority, only thing that changes is the number of alleged conservative justices required to sell out the Constitution. And if the conservative majority is overwhelming, the court just chosses not to hear cases.

    , @Patrick Gibbs
    @Harry Baldwin

    The liberal judges are simply "better" at what they do because they are not slavishly devoted to process. They start with the desired outcome and reason their way backwards from there. In some famous cases, they even forget to reason, and instead resort to some variation of "much feelz"

    , @Wilkey
    @Harry Baldwin


    For the same reason, it doesn’t matter if a Democratic nominee is brilliant or a unqualified affirmative-action hire.
     
    Arguably a dumb Democratic appointee would be better, since they would have less chance of wooing any of the Republican justices over to their side. I absolutely loathed Ginsburg on almost every level, but I can see where she could be charming enough, when necessary, to get justices like O'Connor, Kennedy, and Roberts to side with her on important cases. After all, she and Scalia apparently were very good friends.

    A liberal wing that has only three hard core, far left feminists (at least two of them childless) is less likely to get two of of the Republican appointees to side with them. That's not considering the influence of other outside forces, of course.

    Anyway, I predict that the blackest person Biden will nominate is the half-black /half-Jewish Leondra Kruger, assuming he even tries to keep his promise at all - does his promise really matter when there's almost no chance he will run for reelection?.

    The Democrats will continue bashing us over the head with the importance of "equality" while continuing to fill all of the most powerful positions with Jews. With Breyer's retirement, the Supreme Court will have very quickly gone from 33% Jewish to 11% Jewish in just two years. Supreme Court positions are powerful and openings are rare. It will be very hard for the Jewish lobby to shut up and not try to "convince" Biden - assuming convincing is the worst if it - to nominate yet another Jewish justice. Biden has Ron Klain and Meerrick Garland trying to push him that way, as well.

    And no, I am not and never have been the kind of person who believes that Jews have some giant conspiracy to control the world. But the degree of influence Jews seem to have over the Democratic Party in general - and over this administration in particular - is undeniable.

    Replies: @Anon

    , @Odin
    @Harry Baldwin


    A progressive friend told me the Republicans should have allowed Merrick Garland to get a seat on the Supreme Court “because he is a moderate.”
     
    Still, it's probably just as well that they blocked him. Can you imagine the fate of the Jan 6 protesters if it weren't for this moderate Attorney General?
    , @J1234
    @Harry Baldwin

    Merrick Garland has given me a great idea:
    No nominee can be appointed to the SCOTUS until they first serve as US attorney general (and everyone can see just how unconstitutional and partisan they really are.) I'm only partly kidding. AG is an important job, but at least it's not a life long appointment.

  5. Breyer had the competence, or at least the political nous, to detect and praise judicial role models for USA during the WOT.
    https://www.israel21c.org/u-s-supreme-court-justice-israel-can-teach-us-how-to-balance-human-rights-and-fight-against-terror/

  6. All the justices have smart clerks to do all the hard work.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
    @Roger

    not true: Sotomayor picks hers based on AA. Diversity has corrupted the Supreme Court's brand, and people will notice at the confirmation hearing the difference between a legitimate Harvard JD and an affirmative action impostor. I'm looking forward to a good show

    , @SafeNow
    @Roger

    Yes, the scotus clerks do all the work. And that work, on cases reaching scotus, is way way way out on the far right tail. Ginsberg had 160 law clerks during her tenure on scotus. Only one of them was black (and, if memory serves, not very black). Biden’s justice will not be able to follow the Ginsberg route. Her hiring task will be very difficult, but, I presume, not impossible.

  7. The issue is the illusion of the institution.

    For decades the facade of an “impartial” Supreme Court has withered away, but still a good portion of Americans think that a Supreme Court ruling is far more removed from politics and truthful than something from Congress or the President.

    What remains of that facade requires skillful, verbose, dense legal writing to cover up partisan moves. But for decades, while the right’s S.C. choices have been very good writers (as good as judges can be, mind you), the left ‘s choices are far less skillful. But even then, Blackmun’s post-stroke/aneurysm emotional outbursts were considered sloppy and weak—-but now may be de rigeur for lefty S.C. hacks.

    Kagan, being a former solicitor general, is an ok lefty writer, but still, she was the subtle Lesbian diversity hire, which makes her less formidable. And Sotomayor, a blatant diversity hire, is not intellectually formidable at all, and her opinions are sloppy and betray too much of her partisan hackery. A black female lefty justice will likely expose her stupidity, vapidness, and naked politics even more. This will make people far less respectful of S.C. decisions, which will in turn lead to many people scoffing publicly and flouting them openly.

    Smarter lefties know that using the S.C. for so long required the illusion of apolitical legal analyzation, so putting bad lefty partisans on will only embolden righties to overturn or ignore past lefty precedent. But the diversity hires of the current year don’t think that far ahead.

    • Thanks: Calvin Hobbes
    • Replies: @houston 1992
    @R.G. Camara

    I agree that the Ct has benefitted from gravitas, however illusory.

    The PBS series, The Supreme Ct, really presented that there was some heavy mental lifting occurring and justices could be swayed to form coalitions. See episode The Rehnquist Revolution.

    Transcript https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/about/pop_transcript4.html
    video is easily found via search engine

    Why doesn't Sotomayor have smarter clerks to write her rulings and keep her updated on Covid stats?

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @Hypnotoad666

  8. the 1824 “Corrupt Bargain”

    Neither 1824 nor 1876 were corrupt bargains. 1824 was your basic parliamentary coalescence deal. Jackson fell far short of a majority, and the others ganged up on him. Happens all the time abroad.

    The smart one was John C Calhoun. He ran for VP on the top two tickets, and sailed to an unambiguous victory.

    Only the Presidency was decided by Congress in 1824, and only the Vice Presidency in 1836. So the Twelfth Amendment worked in every election, just not for every office.

    • Replies: @res
    @Reg Cæsar


    The smart one was John C Calhoun. He ran for VP on the top two tickets, and sailed to an unambiguous victory.
     
    How did that work out for him in the long run? Especially regarding his presidential aspirations.
    , @ScarletNumber
    @Reg Cæsar


    Neither 1824 nor 1876 were corrupt bargains
     
    You have offered no evidence supporting the bolded part of your statement

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  9. @Roger
    All the justices have smart clerks to do all the hard work.

    Replies: @Meretricious, @SafeNow

    not true: Sotomayor picks hers based on AA. Diversity has corrupted the Supreme Court’s brand, and people will notice at the confirmation hearing the difference between a legitimate Harvard JD and an affirmative action impostor. I’m looking forward to a good show

  10. But what happened to ‘leading by example’? If affirmative action is good enough for the Supreme Court, it’s good enough for the unwashed too – is surely the (unfortunate) signal. Oh, and how now (brown judge) can the Court rule against Harvard’s affirmative action ‘hiring’? I guess one signal is that fish still rot from the top.

    • Replies: @Hannah Katz
    @TyRade

    Still, Clyburn's demand seems like Blackmail. As opposed to Black Male. No pun intended. So the sacred 13% will now be 22% on the Supreme Court. At least Clarence Thomas has his head on straight.

    , @Bill Jones
    @TyRade


    how now (brown judge)
     
    I saw how close you came there. Especially if indeed it is a woman.
  11. That we’re down to 2 Jews on the Supreme Court and now one of the last ones is about to be replaced by a black woman (With as far as I can see no commentary on it) when the first ‘black’ president was even nominating Kagan is an illustration of Bari Weiss’s nightmare.

    From now on Republicans may just appoint white Catholics (And maybe Protestants? Seems like it’s harder to find qualified Evangelicals and almost all other Protestants aren’t anti-abortion) and Dems black and brown people. Jews are white as far as US politics is now concerned and it’s scaring lots of people, not just Bari Weiss and not just Americans.

    • Replies: @George
    @Altai

    "we’re down to 2 Jews on the Supreme Court "

    I wonder about the clerks. Wikipedia has a list, few clerks have their own wiki page, but you might be able to speculate based on names alone:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

    , @PhysicistDave
    @Altai

    Altai wrote:


    That we’re down to 2 Jews on the Supreme Court and now one of the last ones is about to be replaced by a black woman
     
    I've been following Breyer's career since before he got on the Court. He played a key role in getting Teddy Kennedy on board with airline deregulation (yeah, I know the service used to be better, but we paid through the nose for it).

    No way Sleepy Joe appoints anyone as smart as Breyer.

    And I would still like to think it may be a good idea to have smart people, even ones I often disagree with, on the Court.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    , @SFG
    @Altai

    I suspect POC displacing Jews from the left’s choice posts is going to have all kinds of after effects. I don’t know what they all are but I feel a less effective left is probably a good thing.

    My big worry is Neocon II will drag the USA into war with Iran.

    , @anon
    @Altai

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFLQBUDa0uw

    , @ginger bread man
    @Altai

    Competent Jews handing over the mantle of leadership to less competent blacks is something I first noticed when Jon Stewart quit the daily show in 2015. I pretty much worshipped Jon Stewart for his insightful and genuinely funny takes on everything from the hypocrisy in Washington DC to the absurdity of our wars in the Middle East to standing up for for 9/11 firefighters. He was left of center, but it didn’t really matter because he seemed to have common sense and a hell of a gift for comedic timing.

    He was vocal about wanting a minority to be his replacement because the world needs more minorities in places of visibility.

    The left leaning segment of his audience wanted Jessica Williams, an attractive black woman correspondent, to replace Stewart. She was not so funny, but her black woman attitude was important for the show’s diversity. When she wasn’t chosen, the libtards were so hurt that a “qualified black woman” was overlooked. Williams for her part took it with grace and said she didn’t think the had enough experience to run the show.

    He ended up picking Trevor noah, a half black South African comedian to be his replacement. He was the host of a Daily Show type program in South Africa, and since he’s half black, he gets the diversity points. The only problem is that he’s not as funny or as smart as Jon Stewart. The show has become one big DEI grievance session. Much like SNL, they’ve had to make serious cuts to their comedy to accommodate this new editorial take. To his credit, Trevor Noah has kept the show going for 7 seasons, although I have barely watched the show since.

    To be fair, I do come across some of his clips on YouTube and occasionally I chuckle. I just don’t respect his political takes or find him nearly as funny as Stewart. The point is, he is like the Obama of the Daily show. A Half-white African diversity hire who isn’t as qualified as his predecessor, but who made his name by stoking the flames of racial animosity.

    Then again, as a white Jewish male, I might just be implicitly biased in favor of Stewart and against the half white Trevor Noah.

  12. @R.G. Camara
    The issue is the illusion of the institution.

    For decades the facade of an "impartial" Supreme Court has withered away, but still a good portion of Americans think that a Supreme Court ruling is far more removed from politics and truthful than something from Congress or the President.

    What remains of that facade requires skillful, verbose, dense legal writing to cover up partisan moves. But for decades, while the right's S.C. choices have been very good writers (as good as judges can be, mind you), the left 's choices are far less skillful. But even then, Blackmun's post-stroke/aneurysm emotional outbursts were considered sloppy and weak----but now may be de rigeur for lefty S.C. hacks.

    Kagan, being a former solicitor general, is an ok lefty writer, but still, she was the subtle Lesbian diversity hire, which makes her less formidable. And Sotomayor, a blatant diversity hire, is not intellectually formidable at all, and her opinions are sloppy and betray too much of her partisan hackery. A black female lefty justice will likely expose her stupidity, vapidness, and naked politics even more. This will make people far less respectful of S.C. decisions, which will in turn lead to many people scoffing publicly and flouting them openly.

    Smarter lefties know that using the S.C. for so long required the illusion of apolitical legal analyzation, so putting bad lefty partisans on will only embolden righties to overturn or ignore past lefty precedent. But the diversity hires of the current year don't think that far ahead.

    Replies: @houston 1992

    I agree that the Ct has benefitted from gravitas, however illusory.

    The PBS series, The Supreme Ct, really presented that there was some heavy mental lifting occurring and justices could be swayed to form coalitions. See episode The Rehnquist Revolution.

    Transcript https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/about/pop_transcript4.html
    video is easily found via search engine

    Why doesn’t Sotomayor have smarter clerks to write her rulings and keep her updated on Covid stats?

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    @houston 1992


    The PBS series, The Supreme Ct, really presented that there was some heavy mental lifting occurring and justices could be swayed to form coalitions. See episode The Rehnquist Revolution.
     
    PBS is shite, doing a cover. And what they mean by "coalitions" is just politics.

    Why doesn’t Sotomayor have smarter clerks to write her rulings and keep her updated on Covid stats?
     
    She is very likely hiring them the way she was hired: diversity pokemon points. Sotomayor is likely so dumb she doesn't know how much dumber she is than other judges or how her diversity checkpoints boosted her far above her station -- so she hires clerks that are as "diverse" as her without double checking if they're smart enough for the job of covering for her. Unlike, say, Clarence Thomas, who realized it (showing he is more intelligent than Sotomayor) and is ashamed that it may be true.

    I say this honestly: Sotomayor may rank as one of the bottom five S.C. justices of all time in terms of raw IQ. And I'm including Blackmun after his stroke/aneuryism.

    Replies: @ginger bread man

    , @Hypnotoad666
    @houston 1992


    Why doesn’t Sotomayor have smarter clerks to write her rulings and keep her updated on Covid stats?
     
    I am sure her clerks are plenty smart. The Wise Latina just got excited and went off script based on whatever she thought she heard on NPR that morning. It's a reminder of how much influence the low-IQ MSM propaganda machine has just by virtue of keeping elites immersed in its bubble.
  13. Employers: Get rid of any rules against weaves in your business. You’re going to lose in court!

    • Replies: @Charon
    @Redneck farmer

    And then there's the necessity for laws regarding hair-touching, not to mention white wimmenz tryna steal yo successful Black Man.

    Replies: @Dmon

  14. Biden should nominate Shirley Q. Liquor.

    • Thanks: Charon
    • Replies: @Calvin Hobbes
    @Anon


    Biden should nominate Shirley Q. Liquor.
     
    I had no idea what “Shirley Q. Liquor” was supposed to mean. For those interested, more than you want to know here:

    Shirley Q. Liquor: The Most Dangerous Comedian in America
    Why in the world is a gay white man putting on blackface and performing as a boozing welfare mother who drives a Cadillac? Introducing Shirley Q. Liquor, the last minstrel

    https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/shirley-q-liquor-the-most-dangerous-comedian-in-america-188700/

    Here’s an example of “her” act:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCGBK1E0_uQ

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

  15. Michelle Obama perhaps? Or is she not intersectionally fat enough?

    SCOTUS is just another corrupt ruling class institution, as it might be a Fortune 500 company or a major university.

  16. @Altai
    That we're down to 2 Jews on the Supreme Court and now one of the last ones is about to be replaced by a black woman (With as far as I can see no commentary on it) when the first 'black' president was even nominating Kagan is an illustration of Bari Weiss's nightmare.

    From now on Republicans may just appoint white Catholics (And maybe Protestants? Seems like it's harder to find qualified Evangelicals and almost all other Protestants aren't anti-abortion) and Dems black and brown people. Jews are white as far as US politics is now concerned and it's scaring lots of people, not just Bari Weiss and not just Americans.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O3N1HadPPA

    Replies: @George, @PhysicistDave, @SFG, @anon, @ginger bread man

    “we’re down to 2 Jews on the Supreme Court ”

    I wonder about the clerks. Wikipedia has a list, few clerks have their own wiki page, but you might be able to speculate based on names alone:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

  17. Sotomayor is dumb, diseased, diabetic, dysfunctional. Her flunkies, aka clerks, are doing all the work. Sotomayor is dumb as a post.

    Is being a Supreme Court Clerk the most gay and most kiss-ass job is DC? Or what?

    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    @Clyde


    Is being a Supreme Court Clerk the most gay and most kiss-ass job is DC? Or what?
     
    Its actually and potentially the most nerdy of all political government jobs, but nerdy in the sense of looking through miles of atrocious writing and legal history to find helpful quotes -- drudgery on par with moving a 200 pound pile of salt from one end of the room to the other using only a pair of tweezers. And then editing a judge's writing down into something someone can understand (but not too many people, natch).

    Google and Westlaw are far more helpful today than say in 1950, but really, a S.C. clerk's job is the stuff of Kafka and Mike Judge's nightmares.

    , @J.Ross
    @Clyde

    Hugh Hewitt, who was a clerk and spent a life in lawtalking, insists that this was the clerks' fault. I am inclined to agree with commenters here that if a justice comes in with a darn fool idee fixe, the college kid who bings and proofreads for her isn't going to do anything to dislodge it. If Hewitt is right about this then that's actually worrying. I don't like the Supreme Court but I like it in the hands of fresh law students even less.

    , @JimDandy
    @Clyde

    It's definitely the gayest, most-kiss-ass job in DC, and that's saying something. Sotomayer's imbecilic babbling during the Covid mandates discussion revealed that she researches cases by watching The View.

    Steve wrote: "An interesting question about a Supreme Court justice is how important is competence?" Sotomayer is proof that the answer is: "Not important at all"

  18. Clarence Thomas should just announce that he now identifies as a woman. Checkmate Bigots!

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Martin Davies


    Clarence Thomas should just announce that he now identifies as a woman.
     
    And a Jew. He's already been both a Catholic and a Protestant.


    John Kerry just missed this trifecta, hat trick, or whatever. He has Puritan ancestors, but wasn't one himself. Al Smith seems to have had grandparents from four different-- and convenient-- ethnicities: Italian, Irish, German, and English. He also supported and signed bills to take his state out of Prohibition enforcement-- my kind of sanctuary!
  19. Do smart lib or con justices ever sway moderates, or do the mods decide on whatever idiosyncratic criteria they have? If the former, a dumb black is better than a smart Jew.

    Now if we could just get the cons to understand what the L’s always knew. There is good precedent that must be upheld and bad precedent that needs to be unprecedented, so to speak.

    • Agree: PhysicistDave
    • Replies: @R.G. Camara
    @Rob


    Do smart lib or con justices ever sway moderates, or do the mods decide on whatever idiosyncratic criteria they have?
     
    Earl Warren made a career out of swaying/cajoling/threatening/blackmailing fellow justices to his side. Never underestimate a political mover and shaker in a political environment.

    Replies: @res

  20. @Redneck farmer
    Employers: Get rid of any rules against weaves in your business. You're going to lose in court!

    Replies: @Charon

    And then there’s the necessity for laws regarding hair-touching, not to mention white wimmenz tryna steal yo successful Black Man.

    • Thanks: Redneck farmer
    • Replies: @Dmon
    @Charon

    I had almost forgotten about that. No wonder Anita Hill hated Clarence Thomas so much.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Thomas

  21. @houston 1992
    @R.G. Camara

    I agree that the Ct has benefitted from gravitas, however illusory.

    The PBS series, The Supreme Ct, really presented that there was some heavy mental lifting occurring and justices could be swayed to form coalitions. See episode The Rehnquist Revolution.

    Transcript https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/about/pop_transcript4.html
    video is easily found via search engine

    Why doesn't Sotomayor have smarter clerks to write her rulings and keep her updated on Covid stats?

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @Hypnotoad666

    The PBS series, The Supreme Ct, really presented that there was some heavy mental lifting occurring and justices could be swayed to form coalitions. See episode The Rehnquist Revolution.

    PBS is shite, doing a cover. And what they mean by “coalitions” is just politics.

    Why doesn’t Sotomayor have smarter clerks to write her rulings and keep her updated on Covid stats?

    She is very likely hiring them the way she was hired: diversity pokemon points. Sotomayor is likely so dumb she doesn’t know how much dumber she is than other judges or how her diversity checkpoints boosted her far above her station — so she hires clerks that are as “diverse” as her without double checking if they’re smart enough for the job of covering for her. Unlike, say, Clarence Thomas, who realized it (showing he is more intelligent than Sotomayor) and is ashamed that it may be true.

    I say this honestly: Sotomayor may rank as one of the bottom five S.C. justices of all time in terms of raw IQ. And I’m including Blackmun after his stroke/aneuryism.

    • LOL: AndrewR
    • Replies: @ginger bread man
    @R.G. Camara

    Can you prove that Clarence thomas is stupider than the other justices, that he’s aware of it, and that he hires other justices based on this? I just never heard this so please send some links to expound.

    Replies: @Meretricious

  22. @Rob
    Do smart lib or con justices ever sway moderates, or do the mods decide on whatever idiosyncratic criteria they have? If the former, a dumb black is better than a smart Jew.

    Now if we could just get the cons to understand what the L’s always knew. There is good precedent that must be upheld and bad precedent that needs to be unprecedented, so to speak.

    Replies: @R.G. Camara

    Do smart lib or con justices ever sway moderates, or do the mods decide on whatever idiosyncratic criteria they have?

    Earl Warren made a career out of swaying/cajoling/threatening/blackmailing fellow justices to his side. Never underestimate a political mover and shaker in a political environment.

    • Replies: @res
    @R.G. Camara


    Never underestimate a political mover and shaker in a political environment.
     
    A good example being Anthony Fauci.
  23. @Clyde
    Sotomayor is dumb, diseased, diabetic, dysfunctional. Her flunkies, aka clerks, are doing all the work. Sotomayor is dumb as a post.

    Is being a Supreme Court Clerk the most gay and most kiss-ass job is DC? Or what?

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @J.Ross, @JimDandy

    Is being a Supreme Court Clerk the most gay and most kiss-ass job is DC? Or what?

    Its actually and potentially the most nerdy of all political government jobs, but nerdy in the sense of looking through miles of atrocious writing and legal history to find helpful quotes — drudgery on par with moving a 200 pound pile of salt from one end of the room to the other using only a pair of tweezers. And then editing a judge’s writing down into something someone can understand (but not too many people, natch).

    Google and Westlaw are far more helpful today than say in 1950, but really, a S.C. clerk’s job is the stuff of Kafka and Mike Judge’s nightmares.

    • Thanks: Calvin Hobbes
  24. I sincerely hope that Joe Biden nominates Michelle Obama to be an associate justice. Or Oprah Winfrey or Whoopi Goldberg; if competence doesn’t matter (and Steve’s right, it probably doesn’t), then choose the black woman with the most stupendous negritude. Let the other eight justices enjoy the benefits of cultural enrichment and vibrancy.

    The Republicans will probably miss yet another opportunity to appeal to Asians and Hispanics by painting the Democratic Party as the black party; there’s a reason that Sam Francis called it the Stupid Party.

    • LOL: Joe Magarac
    • Replies: @Joe Magarac
    @Diversity Heretic


    I sincerely hope that Joe Biden nominates Michelle Obama to be an associate justice. Or Oprah Winfrey or Whoopi Goldberg; if competence doesn’t matter (and Steve’s right, it probably doesn’t), then choose the black woman with the most stupendous negritude.
     
    Yes. She must be stupendous.

    Lizzo.

    Replies: @Meretricious

    , @J.Ross
    @Diversity Heretic

    the black woman with the most stupendous negritude
    Toni Morrison.

    , @Clyde
    @Diversity Heretic


    I sincerely hope that Joe Biden nominates Michelle Obama to be an associate justice. Or Oprah Winfrey or Whoopi Goldberg; if competence doesn’t matter........
     
    I am pulling for Whoopi. The most obese and the most ghetto, at least on TV. Pack that porker onto the Supreme Court!

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    , @AndrewR
    @Diversity Heretic

    Barack Obama would be an obvious choice to replace Breyer. He is still relatively young, almost universally liked by Democrats, and popular with independents. And there is already precedent for a former president to be appointed to the supreme court: William Taft. But Sleepy Joe won't pick him because

    1. Biden already painted himself into a corner by promising to nominate a Shaniqua to the court, and I don't see Barack coming out as trans any time soon.

    2. Obama - while not a "black American" in any meaningful way - has appropriated blacks' well-known cultural trait of indolence, and he wants to spend the rest of his life enjoying his status as an A-list jetsetter instead of having to do actual work again.

  25. @Alrenous
    The specific problem is that if I believe the supreme court has become unfit for purpose I cannot unsubscribe.

    This means it faces strong incentives to become unfit for purpose - corruption is profitable - and no incentive to remain in working order. The result is inevitable and it's already well-known to everyone who has heard of public choice theory.

    The institution is not offering a deal, it is merely attempting to impose its values on me by force. In game theory we can see this forms a defection cell in the prisoner's dilemma. They could offer me a product in exchange for compensation, but they have instead chosen to secure the compensation without having to offer a product.

    Replies: @PhysicistDave

    Alrenous wrote:

    This means [the Supreme Court] faces strong incentives to become unfit for purpose – corruption is profitable – and no incentive to remain in working order. The result is inevitable and it’s already well-known to everyone who has heard of public choice theory.

    Yeah, though there is an interesting wrinkle here.

    I do not know of any Supreme Court justice in US history selling out for money.

    What they do tend to sell out for is appreciation from the “right sort” of people: people they may meet at DC parties, journalists, law professors, the people likely to write histories of the Court, etc.

    Interestingly, Clarence Thomas seems not to give a damn about any of that.

    The one good thing GHW Bush did.

    • Replies: @Joe Magarac
    @PhysicistDave


    What they do tend to sell out for is appreciation from the “right sort” of people
     
    IIRC the expression was "growing into the office".
    , @J.Ross
    @PhysicistDave

    There's no way to know if one sold out. But they do get black eyes, beatings, and failures of breathing horrifyingly often considering their position.

    , @Alrenous
    @PhysicistDave

    I expect most of them are very thoroughly paid for long before they even get a chance to apply for supreme court justice.

    I don't like to assume they're incompetent at hiding their back room dealings. It's called the back room, after all. They may be financially ascetic but I rather doubt it. Therefore, epistemically speaking, a presumption of innocence is not valid.

    They must provide specific evidence showing lack of corruption. E.g. public recordings of all meetings of legally-relevant personnel, and documented movements giving alibis for any potential off-book meetings.
    Such evidence is, naturally, not provided.

    There is motive and opportunity.

    From another angle, you can assume ~every justice has already sold to the highest probable bidder, e.g. Soros or the Harvard endowment, and very straightforwardly match their actual behaviour. If they're not paid for they're leaving money on the table, because they would hardly have to do anything differently.

    P.S. If they are incompetent I lose little by overestimating them. If I happen to encounter one, I will overspend slightly and they will fail anyway.

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @PhysicistDave

    Dave, you hit upon Peak Stupidity's Cocktail Party theory of Political Stupidity.

    As for GHWB, that was just the luck of the draw. I don't think anyone knows how some of these guys and broads are going to turn out, even 5 years later only. Indeed, Clarance Thomas is a good man. You don't get many.

    I'm guessing John Roberts has been blackmailed. He votes for the Establishment when it comes down to the wire - the 6-3 Øb☭macare decision (sure, it's a TAX, yeah, that's the ticket) and then just recently his upholding of the Bai Dien administration's mandate on healthcare workers to be forced to vaccinate (5-4) is another. (He couldn't help on the general 100-employee corporate mandate because it was 5-3 against already.)

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  26. Political decisions are always based on politics, favoritism, and tribal membership rather than merit. So maybe it’s not fair to criticize a Supreme Court pick merely because it’s based on group membership. But that’s also exactly why we don’t want the rest of the economy to be run according to affirmative action political desisions.

    As one of the Senators said in support of Nixon’s (ultimately failed) nomination of G. Harrold Cogswell in 1970:

    There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they? We can’t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.

    So true.

    • Replies: @ginger bread man
    @Hypnotoad666

    Not all Supreme Court justices can be of the Hebraic persuasion...

    Replies: @turtle

  27. @Altai
    That we're down to 2 Jews on the Supreme Court and now one of the last ones is about to be replaced by a black woman (With as far as I can see no commentary on it) when the first 'black' president was even nominating Kagan is an illustration of Bari Weiss's nightmare.

    From now on Republicans may just appoint white Catholics (And maybe Protestants? Seems like it's harder to find qualified Evangelicals and almost all other Protestants aren't anti-abortion) and Dems black and brown people. Jews are white as far as US politics is now concerned and it's scaring lots of people, not just Bari Weiss and not just Americans.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O3N1HadPPA

    Replies: @George, @PhysicistDave, @SFG, @anon, @ginger bread man

    Altai wrote:

    That we’re down to 2 Jews on the Supreme Court and now one of the last ones is about to be replaced by a black woman

    I’ve been following Breyer’s career since before he got on the Court. He played a key role in getting Teddy Kennedy on board with airline deregulation (yeah, I know the service used to be better, but we paid through the nose for it).

    No way Sleepy Joe appoints anyone as smart as Breyer.

    And I would still like to think it may be a good idea to have smart people, even ones I often disagree with, on the Court.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @PhysicistDave


    I’ve been following Breyer’s career since before he got on the Court.
     
    There was a story that Breyer was Clinton's first choice for his first nomination (a few months into his presidency) but got knocked off the list after the in-person interview went poorly. So Billy Boy went with the runner-up, a fetching gal named Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    Then, a year later, another vacancy came up and Breyer finally got the nod. Presumably he did a better job of sucking up to the president the second time around.

    Replies: @Daniel Williams

  28. @Altai
    That we're down to 2 Jews on the Supreme Court and now one of the last ones is about to be replaced by a black woman (With as far as I can see no commentary on it) when the first 'black' president was even nominating Kagan is an illustration of Bari Weiss's nightmare.

    From now on Republicans may just appoint white Catholics (And maybe Protestants? Seems like it's harder to find qualified Evangelicals and almost all other Protestants aren't anti-abortion) and Dems black and brown people. Jews are white as far as US politics is now concerned and it's scaring lots of people, not just Bari Weiss and not just Americans.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O3N1HadPPA

    Replies: @George, @PhysicistDave, @SFG, @anon, @ginger bread man

    I suspect POC displacing Jews from the left’s choice posts is going to have all kinds of after effects. I don’t know what they all are but I feel a less effective left is probably a good thing.

    My big worry is Neocon II will drag the USA into war with Iran.

    • Agree: ginger bread man
  29. @houston 1992
    @R.G. Camara

    I agree that the Ct has benefitted from gravitas, however illusory.

    The PBS series, The Supreme Ct, really presented that there was some heavy mental lifting occurring and justices could be swayed to form coalitions. See episode The Rehnquist Revolution.

    Transcript https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/about/pop_transcript4.html
    video is easily found via search engine

    Why doesn't Sotomayor have smarter clerks to write her rulings and keep her updated on Covid stats?

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @Hypnotoad666

    Why doesn’t Sotomayor have smarter clerks to write her rulings and keep her updated on Covid stats?

    I am sure her clerks are plenty smart. The Wise Latina just got excited and went off script based on whatever she thought she heard on NPR that morning. It’s a reminder of how much influence the low-IQ MSM propaganda machine has just by virtue of keeping elites immersed in its bubble.

  30. You can be an empty suit on the Supreme Court because you have multiple brilliant clerks doing the actual work.

    If you want you can be like a director who doesn’t know the technical side or care to get into it but can say, “I need softer lighting.” Well, someone has to do the actual lighting and photography but it doesn’t have to be you, Lord Director.

    Your side is better off with a powerhouse intellectual like Scalia, of course. But anyone can be a reliable Scalia vote. They can just tell their clerks, “Dissent here like Scalia.” It just won’t be as fun to read as an actual Scalia dissent and that Justice won’t influence legal scholars and law students, etc. But the clerks will make sure the is are dotted and the ts are crossed.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @Whereismyhandle

    The clerks are almost all recent graduates, elite ones to be sure, and I think a Justice completely turning over the job to them, except for rubber stamping by the Justice, and the Justice covering conferences and oral argument, would soon be apparent. I don't doubt that it's happened on occasion.

    Replies: @scrivener3

  31. @Diversity Heretic
    I sincerely hope that Joe Biden nominates Michelle Obama to be an associate justice. Or Oprah Winfrey or Whoopi Goldberg; if competence doesn't matter (and Steve's right, it probably doesn't), then choose the black woman with the most stupendous negritude. Let the other eight justices enjoy the benefits of cultural enrichment and vibrancy.

    The Republicans will probably miss yet another opportunity to appeal to Asians and Hispanics by painting the Democratic Party as the black party; there's a reason that Sam Francis called it the Stupid Party.

    Replies: @Joe Magarac, @J.Ross, @Clyde, @AndrewR

    I sincerely hope that Joe Biden nominates Michelle Obama to be an associate justice. Or Oprah Winfrey or Whoopi Goldberg; if competence doesn’t matter (and Steve’s right, it probably doesn’t), then choose the black woman with the most stupendous negritude.

    Yes. She must be stupendous.

    Lizzo.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
    @Joe Magarac

    Whoopi and Oprah are not stupid (and they are way too old); Michelle is just too dumb and would make an ass out of herself during hearings

  32. @PhysicistDave
    @Alrenous

    Alrenous wrote:


    This means [the Supreme Court] faces strong incentives to become unfit for purpose – corruption is profitable – and no incentive to remain in working order. The result is inevitable and it’s already well-known to everyone who has heard of public choice theory.
     
    Yeah, though there is an interesting wrinkle here.

    I do not know of any Supreme Court justice in US history selling out for money.

    What they do tend to sell out for is appreciation from the "right sort" of people: people they may meet at DC parties, journalists, law professors, the people likely to write histories of the Court, etc.

    Interestingly, Clarence Thomas seems not to give a damn about any of that.

    The one good thing GHW Bush did.

    Replies: @Joe Magarac, @J.Ross, @Alrenous, @Achmed E. Newman

    What they do tend to sell out for is appreciation from the “right sort” of people

    IIRC the expression was “growing into the office”.

  33. @anon

    Clyburn told CNN on Wednesday that he did inform Biden he should address the issue of no black woman ever serving on the Supreme Court
     
    Is Justice Sotomayor not a Black woman? If she is from Puerto Rico, she probably is of African descent.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @SF

    Is Rita Moreno black? Doubt it.

    One drop rule is not realistic.

    • Thanks: Hibernian
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Since PR follows a more Spanish definition of ethnicity, the one-drop rule has never applied.

    I’ve met Latin Americans who claimed pure Spanish descent who were clearly mixed.

    I’ve known Latin Americans who looked pure Indian claim to be Mestizo

    Mixtures with African Americans are more problematic. Although there was far more African than Spanish blood in the Caribbean, the African descent is often not noted at all.

    So, if Justice Sotamayor has African blood, is it most likely her family has long since forgotten about it, and is not something she would likely claim.

    Replies: @Anon, @Bardon Kaldian, @PaceLaw

  34. @PhysicistDave
    @Alrenous

    Alrenous wrote:


    This means [the Supreme Court] faces strong incentives to become unfit for purpose – corruption is profitable – and no incentive to remain in working order. The result is inevitable and it’s already well-known to everyone who has heard of public choice theory.
     
    Yeah, though there is an interesting wrinkle here.

    I do not know of any Supreme Court justice in US history selling out for money.

    What they do tend to sell out for is appreciation from the "right sort" of people: people they may meet at DC parties, journalists, law professors, the people likely to write histories of the Court, etc.

    Interestingly, Clarence Thomas seems not to give a damn about any of that.

    The one good thing GHW Bush did.

    Replies: @Joe Magarac, @J.Ross, @Alrenous, @Achmed E. Newman

    There’s no way to know if one sold out. But they do get black eyes, beatings, and failures of breathing horrifyingly often considering their position.

  35. @Diversity Heretic
    I sincerely hope that Joe Biden nominates Michelle Obama to be an associate justice. Or Oprah Winfrey or Whoopi Goldberg; if competence doesn't matter (and Steve's right, it probably doesn't), then choose the black woman with the most stupendous negritude. Let the other eight justices enjoy the benefits of cultural enrichment and vibrancy.

    The Republicans will probably miss yet another opportunity to appeal to Asians and Hispanics by painting the Democratic Party as the black party; there's a reason that Sam Francis called it the Stupid Party.

    Replies: @Joe Magarac, @J.Ross, @Clyde, @AndrewR

    the black woman with the most stupendous negritude
    Toni Morrison.

  36. @PhysicistDave
    @Alrenous

    Alrenous wrote:


    This means [the Supreme Court] faces strong incentives to become unfit for purpose – corruption is profitable – and no incentive to remain in working order. The result is inevitable and it’s already well-known to everyone who has heard of public choice theory.
     
    Yeah, though there is an interesting wrinkle here.

    I do not know of any Supreme Court justice in US history selling out for money.

    What they do tend to sell out for is appreciation from the "right sort" of people: people they may meet at DC parties, journalists, law professors, the people likely to write histories of the Court, etc.

    Interestingly, Clarence Thomas seems not to give a damn about any of that.

    The one good thing GHW Bush did.

    Replies: @Joe Magarac, @J.Ross, @Alrenous, @Achmed E. Newman

    I expect most of them are very thoroughly paid for long before they even get a chance to apply for supreme court justice.

    I don’t like to assume they’re incompetent at hiding their back room dealings. It’s called the back room, after all. They may be financially ascetic but I rather doubt it. Therefore, epistemically speaking, a presumption of innocence is not valid.

    They must provide specific evidence showing lack of corruption. E.g. public recordings of all meetings of legally-relevant personnel, and documented movements giving alibis for any potential off-book meetings.
    Such evidence is, naturally, not provided.

    There is motive and opportunity.

    From another angle, you can assume ~every justice has already sold to the highest probable bidder, e.g. Soros or the Harvard endowment, and very straightforwardly match their actual behaviour. If they’re not paid for they’re leaving money on the table, because they would hardly have to do anything differently.

    P.S. If they are incompetent I lose little by overestimating them. If I happen to encounter one, I will overspend slightly and they will fail anyway.

  37. I am not surprised Biden plans to pick a black woman, since this group are the most dog-loyal Democrats in existence and the party is obsessed with tokenism. What is surprising is that he just came right out and said it rather than just produce a nominee that checks these boxes after a couple of weeks “search” for the supposedly best qualified pick.

    Obviously the polling for Biden and the Dems is bad these days, but it must be worse than I thought that he wouldn’t even try to pretend this was anything other than a bald faced attempt to rally flagging support with his base. As Steve notes, the ideology of the pick really doesn’t matter as SCOTUS is effectively a legislature for legal matters at this point. The GOP would be smart to not make too much of a fuss and vote whomever it is right through so they can stay focused on the multiple issues in which they currently have the advantage. The left’s playbook of calling all things racist is losing its power a bit, but a bunch of old white men lining up to slag a black lady will provide a lot of cheap fodder for the base.

    • Replies: @Brutusale
    @Arclight

    This is why he should nominate from another minority group. Democratic black women will NEVER vote Republican. Biden's numbers with Asians and Hispanics are taking a real hit, and making one of their own the nominee could help stop the bleeding.

    , @International Jew
    @Arclight

    I'd rather enjoy seeing some smart GOP lawyers grill the nominee on Constitutional law and thereby make a fool of her.

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @J1234, @Arclight

    , @Ian Smith
    @Arclight

    Biden would win my vote if he nominated Diamond or Silk for the job.

  38. A White voting democratic votes for his own extinction. May his children curse him forever for the dark world to come.

  39. @Clyde
    Sotomayor is dumb, diseased, diabetic, dysfunctional. Her flunkies, aka clerks, are doing all the work. Sotomayor is dumb as a post.

    Is being a Supreme Court Clerk the most gay and most kiss-ass job is DC? Or what?

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @J.Ross, @JimDandy

    Hugh Hewitt, who was a clerk and spent a life in lawtalking, insists that this was the clerks’ fault. I am inclined to agree with commenters here that if a justice comes in with a darn fool idee fixe, the college kid who bings and proofreads for her isn’t going to do anything to dislodge it. If Hewitt is right about this then that’s actually worrying. I don’t like the Supreme Court but I like it in the hands of fresh law students even less.

  40. @TyRade
    But what happened to 'leading by example'? If affirmative action is good enough for the Supreme Court, it's good enough for the unwashed too - is surely the (unfortunate) signal. Oh, and how now (brown judge) can the Court rule against Harvard's affirmative action 'hiring'? I guess one signal is that fish still rot from the top.

    Replies: @Hannah Katz, @Bill Jones

    Still, Clyburn’s demand seems like Blackmail. As opposed to Black Male. No pun intended. So the sacred 13% will now be 22% on the Supreme Court. At least Clarence Thomas has his head on straight.

  41. @Diversity Heretic
    I sincerely hope that Joe Biden nominates Michelle Obama to be an associate justice. Or Oprah Winfrey or Whoopi Goldberg; if competence doesn't matter (and Steve's right, it probably doesn't), then choose the black woman with the most stupendous negritude. Let the other eight justices enjoy the benefits of cultural enrichment and vibrancy.

    The Republicans will probably miss yet another opportunity to appeal to Asians and Hispanics by painting the Democratic Party as the black party; there's a reason that Sam Francis called it the Stupid Party.

    Replies: @Joe Magarac, @J.Ross, @Clyde, @AndrewR

    I sincerely hope that Joe Biden nominates Michelle Obama to be an associate justice. Or Oprah Winfrey or Whoopi Goldberg; if competence doesn’t matter……..

    I am pulling for Whoopi. The most obese and the most ghetto, at least on TV. Pack that porker onto the Supreme Court!

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Clyde

    If Whoopi Goldberg gets in, the court will really lean left. I mean lean, as in requiring bottle jacks and 6 x 6's to fix.

    Wait, am I on the right thread?

  42. @Harry Baldwin
    A progressive friend told me the Republicans should have allowed Merrick Garland to get a seat on the Supreme Court "because he is a moderate." I told my friend it didn't matter if a Democratic appointee was a moderate or and extremist, since on any political charged issue the Democratic justices all march in lockstep. For the same reason, it doesn't matter if a Democratic nominee is brilliant or a unqualified affirmative-action hire.

    Replies: @Thirdtwin, @Patrick Gibbs, @Wilkey, @Odin, @J1234

    “…it doesn’t matter if a Democratic nominee is brilliant or a unqualified affirmative-action hire.”

    True, and if the Dem justices are in the minority, only thing that changes is the number of alleged conservative justices required to sell out the Constitution. And if the conservative majority is overwhelming, the court just chosses not to hear cases.

  43. @Harry Baldwin
    A progressive friend told me the Republicans should have allowed Merrick Garland to get a seat on the Supreme Court "because he is a moderate." I told my friend it didn't matter if a Democratic appointee was a moderate or and extremist, since on any political charged issue the Democratic justices all march in lockstep. For the same reason, it doesn't matter if a Democratic nominee is brilliant or a unqualified affirmative-action hire.

    Replies: @Thirdtwin, @Patrick Gibbs, @Wilkey, @Odin, @J1234

    The liberal judges are simply “better” at what they do because they are not slavishly devoted to process. They start with the desired outcome and reason their way backwards from there. In some famous cases, they even forget to reason, and instead resort to some variation of “much feelz”

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  44. OT : This week’s New England Journal of Medicine presents a commentary by a plus-sized woman doctor of color apparently upset that the audience for her lecture on “health disparities” was smaller than the audience for the “older, thin White” speaker that preceded her at the podium:

    The large conference room was filled with clinicians. I felt a rush of anxiety and excitement as I saw the massive audience; clinicians needed to hear what I had to say, and our patients and trainees needed them to hear it. As I stood in the back, listening to the preceding speaker bring his talk to an end, I observed the audience sitting on the edge of their seats, clinging to the words of the older, thin, White man at the podium. Clinicians were eager to gain his insight into managing obesity, a problem that affects so many of our patients. As I moved to the front of the room, I observed the crowd from a different angle, scanning the audience: not one empty chair. I was hopeful because Covid had put the spotlight back on health disparities, and the death of George Floyd, among others, had forced medicine to reckon with the fact that we do not exist in a social vacuum. Now seemed to be the time, and I was ready.

    But as I stood there being introduced, waiting to take the podium, I watched a mass exodus. Within a matter of minutes, there were too many empty chairs to count.

    The commentary ends with the chilling totalitarian impulse to compel listeners not to leave the room when the angry fat black lady is about to speak:

    The writer and activist James Baldwin wrote that “not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” We must sit in our discomfort, and we absolutely must change. No more empty chairs.

    Khalilah Gates, M.D.
    Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

    The headline title of the commentary is “Sitting in our Discomfort” which, in pre-woke days, in a prestigious medical journal, would likely be a treatise about failed hemorrhoid treatments.( If only. )Full commentary below:

    [MORE]

    The large conference room was filled with clinicians. I felt a rush of anxiety and excitement as I saw the massive audience; clinicians needed to hear what I had to say, and our patients and trainees needed them to hear it. As I stood in the back, listening to the preceding speaker bring his talk to an end, I observed the audience sitting on the edge of their seats, clinging to the words of the older, thin, White man at the podium. Clinicians were eager to gain his insight into managing obesity, a problem that affects so many of our patients. As I moved to the front of the room, I observed the crowd from a different angle, scanning the audience: not one empty chair. I was hopeful because Covid had put the spotlight back on health disparities, and the death of George Floyd, among others, had forced medicine to reckon with the fact that we do not exist in a social vacuum. Now seemed to be the time, and I was ready.

    But as I stood there being introduced, waiting to take the podium, I watched a mass exodus. Within a matter of minutes, there were too many empty chairs to count. What had happened? I knew the answer and it pained me: the previous occupants of those chairs deemed implicit bias to be less relevant to patient care than obesity. Yet it is relevant, perhaps more so than any other conference topic, since it affects patients beyond the health care setting.

    I quickly texted my mentor, who replied with a “pep text”: “It doesn’t matter if half leave. Make an impression on the people who need and are willing to learn.” But it did — and still does — matter that my colleagues chose to avoid their discomfort.

    In 1999, Schulman et al. published a study revealing that among patients presenting with similar chest pain, patient race and gender seemingly affected the likelihood of being referred for cardiac catheterization.1 If you were a woman, Black, or both, you were less likely to be referred than if you were a man, White, or both. The medical community’s pushback was swift: we did not like the suggestion that we cared for patients differently on the basis of race and gender. But it wasn’t a suggestion — it’s our reality. Multiple other studies have since shown that the majority of health care providers have identifiable implicit biases resulting in preferences for young, thin, rich, heterosexual, and White people.1-4 These biases affect pain management, cancer treatment recommendations, maternal mortality, neonatal mortality, organ transplantation — the list unfortunately goes on. Our biases as health care providers do influence care and outcomes. We can no longer hide from this fact, as difficult as it may be to face. We must sit through the discomfort that being human in medicine brings, and we must acknowledge the impact of our biases.

    As I gave my lecture, I saw a female clinician literally sitting on the edge of her seat, grabbing onto every word I spoke and every video I flashed on the screen. I would frequently look back to her as she clapped, cheered, and did happy dances in her seat among the other empty chairs. During that lecture, she felt validated, her patients were validated. I spent just under an hour discussing implicit biases — providing definitions and examples and exploring their role in health disparities, their effects on health care, and our personal and professional responsibility to learn and mitigate our own biases for the benefit of our patients, trainees, colleagues, and ourselves. I provided strategies for mitigating biases. Unlike the preceding lecture, mine didn’t trigger many questions from the audience; it’s an uncomfortable topic, but it’s one we must commit to engage with.

    I have mixed emotions about that moment when clinicians couldn’t or wouldn’t sit in their discomfort. I am disappointed that 18 years after Unequal Treatment, a report that asserted the contribution of implicit biases to health disparities, as we near the end (I hope) of a pandemic that has exploited persistent disparities, many of us were more willing to walk away than to face the uncomfortable aspects of ourselves and our health care system.5 We can’t afford more empty seats. Our patients, trainees, and colleagues deserve more.

    I will continue to do this work for the woman whose energy and excitement kept me going during that lecture. I will keep doing the work for the clinicians who approached me afterward with gratitude for being “brave” enough to speak about this matter that plagues us all. Most important, I will continue speaking even to the empty chairs for my patients and trainees who deserve and continue to demand better medicine.

    The writer and activist James Baldwin wrote that “not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.” We must sit in our discomfort, and we absolutely must change. No more empty chairs.

    Khalilah Gates, M.D.
    Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL

  45. @anon
    Judges are not rated by how often they're overturned. That is just the cost of doing business. The true test of a good judge is how often they are cited by other judges.

    Replies: @megabar

    > The true test of a good judge is how often they are cited by other judges.

    This argument is used in science, too (e.g. impact factor for journals). But it is quite fallible, as a metric. P0pularity and positive feedback is a real thing, and hard to override in the absence of hard external correction.

    Steve’s point is that there is no hard external correction for a Supreme Court judge.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @megabar


    Steve’s point is that there is no hard external correction for a Supreme Court judge.
     
    Yes there is, though. People, not least those judges themselves, just don't want a precedent set. Impeachment by the House and Senate is an option.

    Way back in 1804 Justice Samuel Chase, appointed by George Washington, was impeached for "acting in a partisan manner during several trials". He was not convicted. (That's like Clinton and Trump.). Much later, in 1969, Lyndon Johnson appointee Abe Fortas resigned under the threat of impeachment (as Richard Nixon did 5 years later) due to his corruption.

    Not enough Americans ever realize the power that was given to them by the Founders and those who made the State Constitutions. All kinds of appointed/elected officials can be recalled.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @megabar

  46. I am not sure that I would call this “old time politics.” More like Current Year Politics.

    Clyburn’s ultimatum, and Biden’s acceptance, grotesque as they were, aren’t “corrupt” in the classic sense of the word. Old-time, corrupt politics would be Clyburn endorsing Biden in exchange for some personal enrichment, or at least in exchange for nominating some designated crony of Clyburn’s who had in the past, or would in the future, enrich him. (Maybe he got that too.)

    That Clyburn in some sense took the high road — from the perspective of today’s identity politics — and chose his favor in the form of a noxious principle, as opposed to a good old fashioned monetary windfall, is why I’d call this Current Year Politics.

    One story that has not been discussed in the media enough is how Biden came from the middle of the pack to secure enough support to get the nomination right as COVID lockdowns were starting. On cue, Bloomberg, the gay guy, and everyone else dropped out when Biden was far from assured as the winner, and when the COVID scam would have made the rest of the primary campaign a real mess, probably benefitting the incumbent Trump. Maybe Clyburn’s endorsement virtually single-handedly gave him the nomination, or maybe something else happened.

  47. @Whereismyhandle
    You can be an empty suit on the Supreme Court because you have multiple brilliant clerks doing the actual work.

    If you want you can be like a director who doesn't know the technical side or care to get into it but can say, "I need softer lighting." Well, someone has to do the actual lighting and photography but it doesn't have to be you, Lord Director.

    Your side is better off with a powerhouse intellectual like Scalia, of course. But anyone can be a reliable Scalia vote. They can just tell their clerks, "Dissent here like Scalia." It just won't be as fun to read as an actual Scalia dissent and that Justice won't influence legal scholars and law students, etc. But the clerks will make sure the is are dotted and the ts are crossed.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    The clerks are almost all recent graduates, elite ones to be sure, and I think a Justice completely turning over the job to them, except for rubber stamping by the Justice, and the Justice covering conferences and oral argument, would soon be apparent. I don’t doubt that it’s happened on occasion.

    • Replies: @scrivener3
    @Hibernian

    If you think a Justice knows the law better than a recent graduate of a top law school, you are probably mistaken. As for research of the issue, the clerks do it all, the Justice relies totally on them. supreme court clerks all clerked for appellate justices first maybe two different ones. They are late 20's early 30's and not children.

    Finally, the Law is not terribly intellectual. As a first year instructor said, it is just reading. You need to abstract relevant facts from not relevant facts which is a special sort of skill. Requires an ability to follow logic if you want rule of law applying equally to all people no matter what their circumstances.

    Its not brain surgery or rocket science.

  48. First of all, the SCt is just a super political senate, that is supposed to be deciding cases and controversies on a personal dispute basis. In reality, their disputes are not really personal, but proxy wars of the political interests.

    Second, law is not that hard. It is written down. Basically says what it says. The art of a supreme court justice is to do things like make it sound plausible that the Constitution, which actually saays nothing about gays or marriage, has “emanations of the penumbras,” that went un-noticed for centuries and have actually required gay marriage all along. Or perhaps you could plausibly opine that the words “shall not be infringed” actually means “can be outlawed” when it comes to arms.

    Of course it is political! Statistically speaking you would never submit hundreds of legal problems to a court and come up with so many 5-4 decisions. Decisions with the same judges on each side. Get a panel of nine doctors to diagnose your cancer. Think there are four who will always vote “it’s not cancer?”

    So if team D nominates a fat black lady judge to replace the smart Jewish grinder judge, that’s a win for team R. Given that the D get to have someone on their team fill the spot and will never vote R. Basically a “self own” by the D side, since the replacement is sure to be worse at writing plausible BS opinions, and much more likely to have embarrassing gaffes in open court.

  49. @megabar
    @anon

    > The true test of a good judge is how often they are cited by other judges.

    This argument is used in science, too (e.g. impact factor for journals). But it is quite fallible, as a metric. P0pularity and positive feedback is a real thing, and hard to override in the absence of hard external correction.

    Steve's point is that there is no hard external correction for a Supreme Court judge.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Steve’s point is that there is no hard external correction for a Supreme Court judge.

    Yes there is, though. People, not least those judges themselves, just don’t want a precedent set. Impeachment by the House and Senate is an option.

    Way back in 1804 Justice Samuel Chase, appointed by George Washington, was impeached for “acting in a partisan manner during several trials”. He was not convicted. (That’s like Clinton and Trump.). Much later, in 1969, Lyndon Johnson appointee Abe Fortas resigned under the threat of impeachment (as Richard Nixon did 5 years later) due to his corruption.

    Not enough Americans ever realize the power that was given to them by the Founders and those who made the State Constitutions. All kinds of appointed/elected officials can be recalled.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    @Achmed E. Newman

    After the acquittal of Justice Chase, Thomas Jefferson characterized the impeachment and removal from office threat to Supreme Court justices as a "scarecrow."

    , @megabar
    @Achmed E. Newman

    > Yes there is, though. People, not least those judges themselves, just don’t want a precedent set. Impeachment by the House and Senate is an option.

    I would argue that impeachment doesn't qualify as hard external correction. It is subjective and political in nature. So long as politicians and voters agree to interpret a judge's actions as acceptable -- even when they cause harm -- the judge will stay on.

  50. @PhysicistDave
    @Alrenous

    Alrenous wrote:


    This means [the Supreme Court] faces strong incentives to become unfit for purpose – corruption is profitable – and no incentive to remain in working order. The result is inevitable and it’s already well-known to everyone who has heard of public choice theory.
     
    Yeah, though there is an interesting wrinkle here.

    I do not know of any Supreme Court justice in US history selling out for money.

    What they do tend to sell out for is appreciation from the "right sort" of people: people they may meet at DC parties, journalists, law professors, the people likely to write histories of the Court, etc.

    Interestingly, Clarence Thomas seems not to give a damn about any of that.

    The one good thing GHW Bush did.

    Replies: @Joe Magarac, @J.Ross, @Alrenous, @Achmed E. Newman

    Dave, you hit upon Peak Stupidity‘s Cocktail Party theory of Political Stupidity.

    As for GHWB, that was just the luck of the draw. I don’t think anyone knows how some of these guys and broads are going to turn out, even 5 years later only. Indeed, Clarance Thomas is a good man. You don’t get many.

    I’m guessing John Roberts has been blackmailed. He votes for the Establishment when it comes down to the wire – the 6-3 Øb☭macare decision (sure, it’s a TAX, yeah, that’s the ticket) and then just recently his upholding of the Bai Dien administration’s mandate on healthcare workers to be forced to vaccinate (5-4) is another. (He couldn’t help on the general 100-employee corporate mandate because it was 5-3 against already.)

    • Agree: Calvin Hobbes
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Achmed E. Newman


    I’m guessing John Roberts has been blackmailed.
     
    Rumor has it that his adoption of two kids from Ireland wasn't strictly kosher.
  51. Still can’t understand how all the other candidates rolled over for Biden after South Carolina. And the black women of So. Carolina have enough gravitas to swing the nomination. courious.

  52. @Joe Magarac
    @Diversity Heretic


    I sincerely hope that Joe Biden nominates Michelle Obama to be an associate justice. Or Oprah Winfrey or Whoopi Goldberg; if competence doesn’t matter (and Steve’s right, it probably doesn’t), then choose the black woman with the most stupendous negritude.
     
    Yes. She must be stupendous.

    Lizzo.

    Replies: @Meretricious

    Whoopi and Oprah are not stupid (and they are way too old); Michelle is just too dumb and would make an ass out of herself during hearings

  53. @Altai
    That we're down to 2 Jews on the Supreme Court and now one of the last ones is about to be replaced by a black woman (With as far as I can see no commentary on it) when the first 'black' president was even nominating Kagan is an illustration of Bari Weiss's nightmare.

    From now on Republicans may just appoint white Catholics (And maybe Protestants? Seems like it's harder to find qualified Evangelicals and almost all other Protestants aren't anti-abortion) and Dems black and brown people. Jews are white as far as US politics is now concerned and it's scaring lots of people, not just Bari Weiss and not just Americans.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O3N1HadPPA

    Replies: @George, @PhysicistDave, @SFG, @anon, @ginger bread man

  54. @Arclight
    I am not surprised Biden plans to pick a black woman, since this group are the most dog-loyal Democrats in existence and the party is obsessed with tokenism. What is surprising is that he just came right out and said it rather than just produce a nominee that checks these boxes after a couple of weeks "search" for the supposedly best qualified pick.

    Obviously the polling for Biden and the Dems is bad these days, but it must be worse than I thought that he wouldn't even try to pretend this was anything other than a bald faced attempt to rally flagging support with his base. As Steve notes, the ideology of the pick really doesn't matter as SCOTUS is effectively a legislature for legal matters at this point. The GOP would be smart to not make too much of a fuss and vote whomever it is right through so they can stay focused on the multiple issues in which they currently have the advantage. The left's playbook of calling all things racist is losing its power a bit, but a bunch of old white men lining up to slag a black lady will provide a lot of cheap fodder for the base.

    Replies: @Brutusale, @International Jew, @Ian Smith

    This is why he should nominate from another minority group. Democratic black women will NEVER vote Republican. Biden’s numbers with Asians and Hispanics are taking a real hit, and making one of their own the nominee could help stop the bleeding.

  55. @Anon
    Biden should nominate Shirley Q. Liquor.

    Replies: @Calvin Hobbes

    Biden should nominate Shirley Q. Liquor.

    I had no idea what “Shirley Q. Liquor” was supposed to mean. For those interested, more than you want to know here:

    Shirley Q. Liquor: The Most Dangerous Comedian in America
    Why in the world is a gay white man putting on blackface and performing as a boozing welfare mother who drives a Cadillac? Introducing Shirley Q. Liquor, the last minstrel

    https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/shirley-q-liquor-the-most-dangerous-comedian-in-america-188700/

    Here’s an example of “her” act:

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @Calvin Hobbes

    I was in tears! Thank you Calvin, and Anon #265 for introducing me to Shirley Q. Liquor.

    I get so much good stuff from iSteve and the commenters. No [Thanks]'s left, so thank you also, Penn Tothal, for that story.

  56. @anon

    Clyburn told CNN on Wednesday that he did inform Biden he should address the issue of no black woman ever serving on the Supreme Court
     
    Is Justice Sotomayor not a Black woman? If she is from Puerto Rico, she probably is of African descent.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @SF

    Sotomayor looks about as black as Kamala Harris, and more black than Megan Markle, both of whom are about 1/4 or a little more African. Somewhere I read that the average Puerto Rican is 29% African and 9% indigenous, although I can’t find the link for that exact number. (Maybe in one of Steve’s old columns)
    If it weren’t for the cultural differences, Sotomayor would have no problem being accepted as African-American.

    • Replies: @PaceLaw
    @SF

    Based on the below article SF, you are close as to the African percentage (27%) but way off on the indigenous amount (61%). More importantly though, Sotomayor views herself as a “wise Latina” (like a character out of the kids movie “Encanto”) and has not knowingly ever identified as black. That’s the key point.

    https://indiancountrytoday.com/.amp/archive/indigenous-puerto-rico-dna-evidence-upsets-established-history

  57. @Clyde
    Sotomayor is dumb, diseased, diabetic, dysfunctional. Her flunkies, aka clerks, are doing all the work. Sotomayor is dumb as a post.

    Is being a Supreme Court Clerk the most gay and most kiss-ass job is DC? Or what?

    Replies: @R.G. Camara, @J.Ross, @JimDandy

    It’s definitely the gayest, most-kiss-ass job in DC, and that’s saying something. Sotomayer’s imbecilic babbling during the Covid mandates discussion revealed that she researches cases by watching The View.

    Steve wrote: “An interesting question about a Supreme Court justice is how important is competence?” Sotomayer is proof that the answer is: “Not important at all”

  58. An interesting question about a Supreme Court justice is how important is competence?

    I can’t speak from first hand knowledge about The Supremes, but I doubt that the situation there isn’t much different from lower courts. “Appellate court judge” is a hard job to do well, but an easy one to fake. Judges have squads of extremely smart and well-educated clerks who are, even for hard-working jurists, the actual authors and editors of the opinions that the judges autograph. Judges may (and many of the elderly do) simply tell their high-energy, ambitious clerks what result they want to reach, and the clerks then produce a document that make that result appear to be the one compelled by our jurisprudence.

    And The Supremes get the best of the best.

    • Replies: @Bernard
    @I, Libertine


    Judges may (and many of the elderly do) simply tell their high-energy, ambitious clerks what result they want to reach, and the clerks then produce a document that make that result appear to be the one compelled by our jurisprudence.
     
    And there is the problem in a nutshell, thanks.
  59. I gotta admit that if would be pretty funny if Joe promised the blegs that his VP would be a black woman and his first Court nominee would be a black woman, and it’s the same woman.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Ghost of Bull Moose

    Which would finally answer the question: Must the Vice President recuse herself from her own Senate confirmation vote?

  60. @Harry Baldwin
    A progressive friend told me the Republicans should have allowed Merrick Garland to get a seat on the Supreme Court "because he is a moderate." I told my friend it didn't matter if a Democratic appointee was a moderate or and extremist, since on any political charged issue the Democratic justices all march in lockstep. For the same reason, it doesn't matter if a Democratic nominee is brilliant or a unqualified affirmative-action hire.

    Replies: @Thirdtwin, @Patrick Gibbs, @Wilkey, @Odin, @J1234

    For the same reason, it doesn’t matter if a Democratic nominee is brilliant or a unqualified affirmative-action hire.

    Arguably a dumb Democratic appointee would be better, since they would have less chance of wooing any of the Republican justices over to their side. I absolutely loathed Ginsburg on almost every level, but I can see where she could be charming enough, when necessary, to get justices like O’Connor, Kennedy, and Roberts to side with her on important cases. After all, she and Scalia apparently were very good friends.

    A liberal wing that has only three hard core, far left feminists (at least two of them childless) is less likely to get two of of the Republican appointees to side with them. That’s not considering the influence of other outside forces, of course.

    Anyway, I predict that the blackest person Biden will nominate is the half-black /half-Jewish Leondra Kruger, assuming he even tries to keep his promise at all – does his promise really matter when there’s almost no chance he will run for reelection?.

    The Democrats will continue bashing us over the head with the importance of “equality” while continuing to fill all of the most powerful positions with Jews. With Breyer’s retirement, the Supreme Court will have very quickly gone from 33% Jewish to 11% Jewish in just two years. Supreme Court positions are powerful and openings are rare. It will be very hard for the Jewish lobby to shut up and not try to “convince” Biden – assuming convincing is the worst if it – to nominate yet another Jewish justice. Biden has Ron Klain and Meerrick Garland trying to push him that way, as well.

    And no, I am not and never have been the kind of person who believes that Jews have some giant conspiracy to control the world. But the degree of influence Jews seem to have over the Democratic Party in general – and over this administration in particular – is undeniable.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Wilkey


    It will be very hard for the Jewish lobby to shut up and not try to “convince” Biden – assuming convincing is the worst if it – to nominate yet another Jewish justice.
     
    Would Kruger be considered a Jewish justice?
  61. If Biden really wants to troll the Republicans he will nominate Anita Hill. Hill is 65 y.o., but for the Dems the coverage from it would be totally worth it.

    Hill would also fit in perfectly, both with the other two Democrats on the Court and with the Democrats overall vision for America: she is yet another unmarried, childless woman.

  62. I doubt that it is likely, but what about Kamela Harris? She is technically black. Putting her on the Supreme Court would open up the vice presidency for Hillary Clinton (who else, after all). Then Biden could be removed and the Deep State could finally get the president it wanted. Nor does the Supreme Court have to be a career ender: FDR seriously considered William O. Douglas as a running mate in 1944. Harris might even feel she could have a political career beyond her chambers. Is anything impossible for a Brahmin of color?

  63. I kind of like their side being all clown-show all the time.

    Supreme Court decisions are binary. So, it’s better that their decisions are written by clowns. But the clerks write the decisions, you say. Well, I expect the nominee will choose clowns for clerks (Diversity!). Something Ginsburg definitely avoided.

  64. @Reg Cæsar

    the 1824 “Corrupt Bargain”
     
    Neither 1824 nor 1876 were corrupt bargains. 1824 was your basic parliamentary coalescence deal. Jackson fell far short of a majority, and the others ganged up on him. Happens all the time abroad.

    The smart one was John C Calhoun. He ran for VP on the top two tickets, and sailed to an unambiguous victory.

    Only the Presidency was decided by Congress in 1824, and only the Vice Presidency in 1836. So the Twelfth Amendment worked in every election, just not for every office.

    Replies: @res, @ScarletNumber

    The smart one was John C Calhoun. He ran for VP on the top two tickets, and sailed to an unambiguous victory.

    How did that work out for him in the long run? Especially regarding his presidential aspirations.

  65. @R.G. Camara
    @Rob


    Do smart lib or con justices ever sway moderates, or do the mods decide on whatever idiosyncratic criteria they have?
     
    Earl Warren made a career out of swaying/cajoling/threatening/blackmailing fellow justices to his side. Never underestimate a political mover and shaker in a political environment.

    Replies: @res

    Never underestimate a political mover and shaker in a political environment.

    A good example being Anthony Fauci.

  66. @Achmed E. Newman
    @megabar


    Steve’s point is that there is no hard external correction for a Supreme Court judge.
     
    Yes there is, though. People, not least those judges themselves, just don't want a precedent set. Impeachment by the House and Senate is an option.

    Way back in 1804 Justice Samuel Chase, appointed by George Washington, was impeached for "acting in a partisan manner during several trials". He was not convicted. (That's like Clinton and Trump.). Much later, in 1969, Lyndon Johnson appointee Abe Fortas resigned under the threat of impeachment (as Richard Nixon did 5 years later) due to his corruption.

    Not enough Americans ever realize the power that was given to them by the Founders and those who made the State Constitutions. All kinds of appointed/elected officials can be recalled.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @megabar

    After the acquittal of Justice Chase, Thomas Jefferson characterized the impeachment and removal from office threat to Supreme Court justices as a “scarecrow.”

  67. @Wilkey
    @Harry Baldwin


    For the same reason, it doesn’t matter if a Democratic nominee is brilliant or a unqualified affirmative-action hire.
     
    Arguably a dumb Democratic appointee would be better, since they would have less chance of wooing any of the Republican justices over to their side. I absolutely loathed Ginsburg on almost every level, but I can see where she could be charming enough, when necessary, to get justices like O'Connor, Kennedy, and Roberts to side with her on important cases. After all, she and Scalia apparently were very good friends.

    A liberal wing that has only three hard core, far left feminists (at least two of them childless) is less likely to get two of of the Republican appointees to side with them. That's not considering the influence of other outside forces, of course.

    Anyway, I predict that the blackest person Biden will nominate is the half-black /half-Jewish Leondra Kruger, assuming he even tries to keep his promise at all - does his promise really matter when there's almost no chance he will run for reelection?.

    The Democrats will continue bashing us over the head with the importance of "equality" while continuing to fill all of the most powerful positions with Jews. With Breyer's retirement, the Supreme Court will have very quickly gone from 33% Jewish to 11% Jewish in just two years. Supreme Court positions are powerful and openings are rare. It will be very hard for the Jewish lobby to shut up and not try to "convince" Biden - assuming convincing is the worst if it - to nominate yet another Jewish justice. Biden has Ron Klain and Meerrick Garland trying to push him that way, as well.

    And no, I am not and never have been the kind of person who believes that Jews have some giant conspiracy to control the world. But the degree of influence Jews seem to have over the Democratic Party in general - and over this administration in particular - is undeniable.

    Replies: @Anon

    It will be very hard for the Jewish lobby to shut up and not try to “convince” Biden – assuming convincing is the worst if it – to nominate yet another Jewish justice.

    Would Kruger be considered a Jewish justice?

  68. It may be worth remembering that Christopher Buckley wrote a satirical novel in 2008 about a President who nominates a fictional version of Judge Judy to the court after the Senate rejects his first nominee for writing in an school paper that he thought To Kill a Mockingbird was boring. Buckley admitted the blowhard Senate Judiciary Chairman in his book was based on Joe Biden. This review is pretty good critique of the book, which as I recall, I didn’t bother to finish. Buckley of course, endorsed Obama a couple of months after it was released, which makes you wonder how much he really objected to celebrity politics.

    https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/christopher-buckley/supreme-courtship/

  69. In reply to Wilkey:

    Anyway, I predict that the blackest person Biden will nominate is the half-black /half-Jewish Leondra Kruger, assuming he even tries to keep his promise at all – does his promise really matter when there’s almost no chance he will run for reelection?.

    I think Biden will chose the person whom the people around him tell him to chose. I would bet 100-to-1 that the person he’s told to choose will be a woman who counts as black. (Kamasutra Harris of course counts as black, even though she’s much more Indian than black genetically and, I think, in terms of her upbringing.)

    Would Jews prefer half-Jewish Leondra Kruger over other “black” women. I would guess that Leonora’s half-Jewishness would not make that much difference to them, assuming that Leondra emphasizes her “blackness” over her Jewishness (and over just about everything else), as she probably does. (But I’d like to hear the opinion of the Jews of Unz about this!)

    Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier was (she just died on January 7, 2022) half-Jewish. My impression was that she was all-black politically. I can’t think of other black+Jewish examples in law, but I’ll bet there are some, and I’ll bet that almost every one of them is all-black politically.

    And of course there’s the half-black/half-Jewish P.O.S. Jussie Smollett.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Calvin Hobbes

    Lani Guinier was Clinton's first choice for attorney general. Unfortunately, she was forced to withdraw after it came out that she had hired an illegal as a nanny.

    Then Clinton nominated another lady who, lo and behold, ended up having the same problem.

    The third time around, he (or whoever was calling the shots) gave the order to find a childless woman. The job went to 6'2" lesbian Janet Reno.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @AnotherDad, @Wilkey, @Ralph L

    , @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Calvin Hobbes

    "Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier was (she just died on January 7, 2022) half-Jewish. My impression was that she was all-black politically."

    You don't seem to understand the rules. "All-black politically" means effectively "militantly and unrelentingly anti-white" which means, in effect, in full service of Jewish goals. How/why do you think they get elevated in the first place?

    All black operatives in politics, law, academia and economics are de facto Jewish operatives because even if they're pure blackety-black to the nth degree, they are still Jewish cat's-paws who serve the never-changing Jewish goal of degrading and destroying white Christian America.

    Replies: @Moses

  70. Hello, Justice Harris! And Hello, Vice-President Clinton!

    • Replies: @Anon
    @SteveRogers42

    How would Hillary be confirmed by a 50-50 without Kamasutra as the tiebreaker?
    Looking at you, Mittens.

  71. @Roger
    All the justices have smart clerks to do all the hard work.

    Replies: @Meretricious, @SafeNow

    Yes, the scotus clerks do all the work. And that work, on cases reaching scotus, is way way way out on the far right tail. Ginsberg had 160 law clerks during her tenure on scotus. Only one of them was black (and, if memory serves, not very black). Biden’s justice will not be able to follow the Ginsberg route. Her hiring task will be very difficult, but, I presume, not impossible.

  72. As for the affirmative action implicit in Biden’s bargain, sure, but let’s keep in mind that Supreme Court nominations are not really all that much like affirmative action in normal jobs. Supreme Court openings are so rare and so desirable that a President can likely come up with somebody plausible no matter how restrictive your preferred demographic.

    I see your point but any nominee who went to college and law school since the at least the 1980s has been formed in an academic culture of affirmative action. So anyone who is not a white or now Asian male carries a suspicion of inferiority due to the bar having been lowered for achievement. We know from statistical analyses that blacks get the biggest added premium in terms of test scores and grades, and to that you’re adding the intersectional pokemon advantage of a uterus.

    And so when you’re talking about lawyer, you’re talking about someone who got a big first bite of the affirmative action apple in undergraduate admissions, then another large bite in Law School admissions – who was then turned out into a profession in which blacks from elite Law Schools are actively recruited for prestigious clerkships and white shoe associate jobs. So the notion that affirmative action will not be rearing its head in this nomination in some form or fashion is, I think, less than accurate.

    What we know also to be almost certain is that a black woman who negotiates this gauntlet is going to have been steeped in all of the worst racial politics of the American academy.

    That said, the Supreme Court shouldn’t be weighing in on much of what it does now, so a Supreme Court shouldn’t necessarily need the smartest of the smart lawyers – in an ideal world it would be nice to have but most cases should be about Admiralty jurisdiction or the application of conflicts of laws and such.

  73. @PhysicistDave
    @Altai

    Altai wrote:


    That we’re down to 2 Jews on the Supreme Court and now one of the last ones is about to be replaced by a black woman
     
    I've been following Breyer's career since before he got on the Court. He played a key role in getting Teddy Kennedy on board with airline deregulation (yeah, I know the service used to be better, but we paid through the nose for it).

    No way Sleepy Joe appoints anyone as smart as Breyer.

    And I would still like to think it may be a good idea to have smart people, even ones I often disagree with, on the Court.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    I’ve been following Breyer’s career since before he got on the Court.

    There was a story that Breyer was Clinton’s first choice for his first nomination (a few months into his presidency) but got knocked off the list after the in-person interview went poorly. So Billy Boy went with the runner-up, a fetching gal named Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    Then, a year later, another vacancy came up and Breyer finally got the nod. Presumably he did a better job of sucking up to the president the second time around.

    • Replies: @Daniel Williams
    @Stan Adams


    Presumably he did a better job of sucking up to the president
     
    And if there was ever a US president who recognized a good job of sucking up better than Clinton, I’d love to hear about him.
  74. @Achmed E. Newman
    @PhysicistDave

    Dave, you hit upon Peak Stupidity's Cocktail Party theory of Political Stupidity.

    As for GHWB, that was just the luck of the draw. I don't think anyone knows how some of these guys and broads are going to turn out, even 5 years later only. Indeed, Clarance Thomas is a good man. You don't get many.

    I'm guessing John Roberts has been blackmailed. He votes for the Establishment when it comes down to the wire - the 6-3 Øb☭macare decision (sure, it's a TAX, yeah, that's the ticket) and then just recently his upholding of the Bai Dien administration's mandate on healthcare workers to be forced to vaccinate (5-4) is another. (He couldn't help on the general 100-employee corporate mandate because it was 5-3 against already.)

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    I’m guessing John Roberts has been blackmailed.

    Rumor has it that his adoption of two kids from Ireland wasn’t strictly kosher.

  75. @Harry Baldwin
    A progressive friend told me the Republicans should have allowed Merrick Garland to get a seat on the Supreme Court "because he is a moderate." I told my friend it didn't matter if a Democratic appointee was a moderate or and extremist, since on any political charged issue the Democratic justices all march in lockstep. For the same reason, it doesn't matter if a Democratic nominee is brilliant or a unqualified affirmative-action hire.

    Replies: @Thirdtwin, @Patrick Gibbs, @Wilkey, @Odin, @J1234

    A progressive friend told me the Republicans should have allowed Merrick Garland to get a seat on the Supreme Court “because he is a moderate.”

    Still, it’s probably just as well that they blocked him. Can you imagine the fate of the Jan 6 protesters if it weren’t for this moderate Attorney General?

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin
  76. @Calvin Hobbes
    In reply to Wilkey:

    Anyway, I predict that the blackest person Biden will nominate is the half-black /half-Jewish Leondra Kruger, assuming he even tries to keep his promise at all – does his promise really matter when there’s almost no chance he will run for reelection?.
     
    I think Biden will chose the person whom the people around him tell him to chose. I would bet 100-to-1 that the person he’s told to choose will be a woman who counts as black. (Kamasutra Harris of course counts as black, even though she’s much more Indian than black genetically and, I think, in terms of her upbringing.)

    Would Jews prefer half-Jewish Leondra Kruger over other “black” women. I would guess that Leonora’s half-Jewishness would not make that much difference to them, assuming that Leondra emphasizes her “blackness” over her Jewishness (and over just about everything else), as she probably does. (But I’d like to hear the opinion of the Jews of Unz about this!)

    Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier was (she just died on January 7, 2022) half-Jewish. My impression was that she was all-black politically. I can’t think of other black+Jewish examples in law, but I’ll bet there are some, and I’ll bet that almost every one of them is all-black politically.

    And of course there’s the half-black/half-Jewish P.O.S. Jussie Smollett.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Lani Guinier was Clinton’s first choice for attorney general. Unfortunately, she was forced to withdraw after it came out that she had hired an illegal as a nanny.

    Then Clinton nominated another lady who, lo and behold, ended up having the same problem.

    The third time around, he (or whoever was calling the shots) gave the order to find a childless woman. The job went to 6’2″ lesbian Janet Reno.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    @Stan Adams


    The job went to 6’2″ lesbian Janet Reno.
     
    Graduate of Coral Gables HS down in your 'burg of Miami, Stan. Other illustrious graduates of this fine institution include Allan Bakke of Bakke vs. Univ of CA fame, NFL RB Frank Gore, the vile Rep. Steve Cohen, and Al Del Greco.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    , @AnotherDad
    @Stan Adams


    Lani Guinier was Clinton’s first choice for attorney general. Unfortunately, she was forced to withdraw after it came out that she had hired an illegal as a nanny.
     
    No, it was Zoe Baird.

    Clinton's picks were:
    1) Zoe Baird (Jewess) -- nannygated; illegal alien nanny and tax cheat
    2) Kimba Wood (Playboy Bunny) -- nannygated even though she actually had paid the required taxes on her illegal alien nany and thus had not broken any law
    3) Janet Reno (Lesbian)

    ~~

    The idea there is some benefit having women in any of these legal, political roles is misguided. Be nice to have the option to live in society that did not do that. (And people who want to live in a society run by women could choose that.) But having childless women "leaders" is folly.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    , @Wilkey
    @Stan Adams


    Lani Guinier was Clinton’s first choice for attorney general. Unfortunately, she was forced to withdraw after it came out that she had hired an illegal as a nanny.
     
    Speaking of illegal nannies, there was a news story the other day about a Florida legislator, Lauren Book (D), who was molested by her nanny for six years, until she was 17 years old. Book's nanny, Waldina Flores, was an an obese illegal woman from Honduras.

    Lauren Book's father is a prominent an wealthy Florida lobbyist, so of course the court threw the book at Flores. She was originally sentenced to 10 years, but her sentence was extended to 25 years after she attempted to contact Book while still in prison.

    So the citizens of Florida get to pay to lock up a fat illegal Honduran immigrant for 25 years all because Lauren Book's wealthy father didn't want to drop an extra $2,000 or so a year for a legal nanny.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    , @Ralph L
    @Stan Adams

    No, he chose two white chicks (Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood) who had illegal nannies. Guinier was chosen for the DoJ Civil rights job, but her anti-democratic, non-race-blind writings (and Clinton's spinelessness) tripped her up.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

  77. Most of the black women whose names have been mentioned for the Court are super competent (putting aside their political views) at least by conventional measures – Yale Law, law review, S. Ct. clerkships, etc. As Steve says, it’s not hard to find ONE highly credentialed black person. One exception has been the woman from S. Carolina that Clyburn specifically had in mind. Clyburn’s excuse for her is similar to Nixon’s excuse for Carswell – don’t the mediocrities of American deserve to be represented on the Court?

    My answer to that is no. The Supreme Court often times has to deal with extremely complex questions of law that have stumped or confused the lower courts and maybe 90% of these decisions have no bearing on the Left/Right spectrum – they are questions about tax law or antitrust law or patent law or whatever. But a Supreme Court justice has to be equipped to intelligently address these complex questions that fall across the full range of the law. Only a 1st class intellect has the ability to deal with such complex and wide ranging issues in a sensible way. Someone of lesser intellect might have good common sense but this is like saying that good common sense can get you thru multivariable calculus or quantum mechanics – it can’t. As the car lovers say, there’s no replacement for displacement.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
    @Jack D

    Jack, with all due respect, you don't know that blacks are getting affirmative action re clerkships, law review, etc? The reason black quotas are so much more insidious than Catholic or Jewish quotas on the Supreme Court is simply because of the much lower IQ of "elite" black lawyers.

    Re posters who maintain Biden will pick half Jew/half black--don't count on it. Remember, this is a blatant diversity hire, so Uncle Joey will want to pick a 100% African American.

    Replies: @Jack D

  78. how important is competence?

    I would settle for those lawyer-justices to be able to understand the simple English that the Constitution is written in, but I suppose it’s possible that they never read the thing.

    Since the time of Marbury vs Madison (cancel Justice Marshall), the institution of SCOTUS has been complete crap. Is there any question under the sun (including how much He is in its core) that these Big Gov busybodies won’t involve themselves in?

    I’m with the LRC crowd that there’s NO WAY that the States would have ratified the constitution had it established the sort SCOTUS we know of today, wherein the majority of a small panel (as few as one to zero) composed of politically appointed, lifetime tenured, ivy-educated lawyers (6,000 miles from HI!) can overrule the will of fifty state legislatures and court systems, and the sentiments of 330M Americans.

    It’s just ridiculous.

  79. @Bardon Kaldian
    @anon

    Is Rita Moreno black? Doubt it.

    One drop rule is not realistic.

    Replies: @Paleo Liberal

    Since PR follows a more Spanish definition of ethnicity, the one-drop rule has never applied.

    I’ve met Latin Americans who claimed pure Spanish descent who were clearly mixed.

    I’ve known Latin Americans who looked pure Indian claim to be Mestizo

    Mixtures with African Americans are more problematic. Although there was far more African than Spanish blood in the Caribbean, the African descent is often not noted at all.

    So, if Justice Sotamayor has African blood, is it most likely her family has long since forgotten about it, and is not something she would likely claim.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Paleo Liberal


    So, if Justice Sotamayor has African blood, is it most likely her family has long since forgotten about it, and is not something she would likely claim.
     
    Does she not look like she has African ancestry?

    Replies: @Meretricious

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @Paleo Liberal

    The point is that extreme racial purists are idiots. No ethnically conscious white person wants miscegenation with blacks; but, if you discover, perhaps by accident, that some white person is of a distant African origin- who gives a hoot?

    Ricardo Duchesne, one of the best minds of the white identity not just in North America, but in the global world, may be of partially African origin. And he has done more for the white European cause than all the IQers put together & combined with moronic neo-Nazis and similar losers.

    https://i0.wp.com/www.redicecreations.com/ul_img/30495ricardoduchesne.jpg

    Here is his devastating critique of Nial Ferguson's simplistic nonsense: https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/1225

    A healthy Euro Puerto-Rican Spaniard of mixed descent, including even English, hammering into ground typical post-modernist miscegenationist rootless Brit.

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41S-XP2cq2L._SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_FMwebp_.jpg

    https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacedvavjdoztap6qbptcgv4ezfqgakhn7bhbtnvhg46qjvkx7hrljki?filename=%28Studies%20in%20Critical%20Social%20Sciences%2028%29%20Ricardo%20Duchesne%20-%20The%20Uniqueness%20of%20Western%20Civilization%20%28Studies%20in%20Critical%20Social%20Sciences%29%20%20-Brill%20%282011%29.pdf

    https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/417FLq3dzOL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

    http://library.lol/main/F34B410AF0975BD736D3154228CD521D

    , @PaceLaw
    @Paleo Liberal

    Well said Paleo. Most Puerto Ricans and other Latinos view being black as being very black in color, as if directly from Uganda or Nigeria. The overwhelming majority of Latinos who do have some percentage of black ancestry do not acknowledge it at all, unless it becomes beneficial to them in these politically correct times.

    Replies: @Anon

  80. @Arclight
    I am not surprised Biden plans to pick a black woman, since this group are the most dog-loyal Democrats in existence and the party is obsessed with tokenism. What is surprising is that he just came right out and said it rather than just produce a nominee that checks these boxes after a couple of weeks "search" for the supposedly best qualified pick.

    Obviously the polling for Biden and the Dems is bad these days, but it must be worse than I thought that he wouldn't even try to pretend this was anything other than a bald faced attempt to rally flagging support with his base. As Steve notes, the ideology of the pick really doesn't matter as SCOTUS is effectively a legislature for legal matters at this point. The GOP would be smart to not make too much of a fuss and vote whomever it is right through so they can stay focused on the multiple issues in which they currently have the advantage. The left's playbook of calling all things racist is losing its power a bit, but a bunch of old white men lining up to slag a black lady will provide a lot of cheap fodder for the base.

    Replies: @Brutusale, @International Jew, @Ian Smith

    I’d rather enjoy seeing some smart GOP lawyers grill the nominee on Constitutional law and thereby make a fool of her.

    • Replies: @Abolish_public_education
    @International Jew

    grill the nominee on Constitutional law

    "I can't answer any question related to issues which may come before me, however I am glad to show you pictures of my adopted children."

    I'd vote to confirm none of them, and to impeach all of them.

    Replies: @International Jew

    , @J1234
    @International Jew


    I’d rather enjoy seeing some smart GOP lawyers grill the nominee on Constitutional law and thereby make a fool of her.
     
    I hope they have the brains to ask her, "Which to you prefer? The US Constitution or the South African Constitution?" (something they weren't able to ask RBG...until after she was on the court.)
    , @Arclight
    @International Jew

    Me too, but the news and DNC will grab clips of that and spin it as bad white man talks down to amazing black lady. I would bet my paycheck that during the confirmation hearing some media figure makes a master/slave analogy because of some hard questions. The less ammo we give them the better.

    Replies: @International Jew

  81. @Paleo Liberal
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Since PR follows a more Spanish definition of ethnicity, the one-drop rule has never applied.

    I’ve met Latin Americans who claimed pure Spanish descent who were clearly mixed.

    I’ve known Latin Americans who looked pure Indian claim to be Mestizo

    Mixtures with African Americans are more problematic. Although there was far more African than Spanish blood in the Caribbean, the African descent is often not noted at all.

    So, if Justice Sotamayor has African blood, is it most likely her family has long since forgotten about it, and is not something she would likely claim.

    Replies: @Anon, @Bardon Kaldian, @PaceLaw

    So, if Justice Sotamayor has African blood, is it most likely her family has long since forgotten about it, and is not something she would likely claim.

    Does she not look like she has African ancestry?

    • Replies: @Meretricious
    @Anon

    no, Sotomayor does not appear African to my eye; she looks indigenous/Hispanic

  82. @Jack D
    Most of the black women whose names have been mentioned for the Court are super competent (putting aside their political views) at least by conventional measures - Yale Law, law review, S. Ct. clerkships, etc. As Steve says, it's not hard to find ONE highly credentialed black person. One exception has been the woman from S. Carolina that Clyburn specifically had in mind. Clyburn's excuse for her is similar to Nixon's excuse for Carswell - don't the mediocrities of American deserve to be represented on the Court?

    My answer to that is no. The Supreme Court often times has to deal with extremely complex questions of law that have stumped or confused the lower courts and maybe 90% of these decisions have no bearing on the Left/Right spectrum - they are questions about tax law or antitrust law or patent law or whatever. But a Supreme Court justice has to be equipped to intelligently address these complex questions that fall across the full range of the law. Only a 1st class intellect has the ability to deal with such complex and wide ranging issues in a sensible way. Someone of lesser intellect might have good common sense but this is like saying that good common sense can get you thru multivariable calculus or quantum mechanics - it can't. As the car lovers say, there's no replacement for displacement.

    Replies: @Meretricious

    Jack, with all due respect, you don’t know that blacks are getting affirmative action re clerkships, law review, etc? The reason black quotas are so much more insidious than Catholic or Jewish quotas on the Supreme Court is simply because of the much lower IQ of “elite” black lawyers.

    Re posters who maintain Biden will pick half Jew/half black–don’t count on it. Remember, this is a blatant diversity hire, so Uncle Joey will want to pick a 100% African American.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Meretricious

    Just like Kamala and Obama?

    Clyburn has a nice ADOS woman picked out for him and Joe owes him but I'm not sure he owes him THAT much.

    Of course there is AA in law school but AA is limited - they don't pick Tynisha off the street corner in N. Philly and put her in Harvard Law. Maybe Leondra should have gone to NYU instead of Yale but she's not a complete idiot, especially after her clerks do her work for her.

  83. @Calvin Hobbes
    In reply to Wilkey:

    Anyway, I predict that the blackest person Biden will nominate is the half-black /half-Jewish Leondra Kruger, assuming he even tries to keep his promise at all – does his promise really matter when there’s almost no chance he will run for reelection?.
     
    I think Biden will chose the person whom the people around him tell him to chose. I would bet 100-to-1 that the person he’s told to choose will be a woman who counts as black. (Kamasutra Harris of course counts as black, even though she’s much more Indian than black genetically and, I think, in terms of her upbringing.)

    Would Jews prefer half-Jewish Leondra Kruger over other “black” women. I would guess that Leonora’s half-Jewishness would not make that much difference to them, assuming that Leondra emphasizes her “blackness” over her Jewishness (and over just about everything else), as she probably does. (But I’d like to hear the opinion of the Jews of Unz about this!)

    Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier was (she just died on January 7, 2022) half-Jewish. My impression was that she was all-black politically. I can’t think of other black+Jewish examples in law, but I’ll bet there are some, and I’ll bet that almost every one of them is all-black politically.

    And of course there’s the half-black/half-Jewish P.O.S. Jussie Smollett.

    Replies: @Stan Adams, @The Germ Theory of Disease

    “Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier was (she just died on January 7, 2022) half-Jewish. My impression was that she was all-black politically.”

    You don’t seem to understand the rules. “All-black politically” means effectively “militantly and unrelentingly anti-white” which means, in effect, in full service of Jewish goals. How/why do you think they get elevated in the first place?

    All black operatives in politics, law, academia and economics are de facto Jewish operatives because even if they’re pure blackety-black to the nth degree, they are still Jewish cat’s-paws who serve the never-changing Jewish goal of degrading and destroying white Christian America.

    • Replies: @Moses
    @The Germ Theory of Disease


    All black operatives in politics, law, academia and economics are de facto Jewish operatives because even if they’re pure blackety-black to the nth degree, they are still Jewish cat’s-paws who serve the never-changing Jewish goal of degrading and destroying white Christian America.
     
    Sadly true.

    We Jews do not feel safe in a supermajority White society. With lots of non-White groups we don’t stick out as much. And without a unified White supermajority it’s much harder for Whites to mount any more Kristallnachts against us.

    My fellow co-ethnics have no love for the Schwartzes. They are merely a useful cudgel to wield against you Whites.
  84. @Diversity Heretic
    I sincerely hope that Joe Biden nominates Michelle Obama to be an associate justice. Or Oprah Winfrey or Whoopi Goldberg; if competence doesn't matter (and Steve's right, it probably doesn't), then choose the black woman with the most stupendous negritude. Let the other eight justices enjoy the benefits of cultural enrichment and vibrancy.

    The Republicans will probably miss yet another opportunity to appeal to Asians and Hispanics by painting the Democratic Party as the black party; there's a reason that Sam Francis called it the Stupid Party.

    Replies: @Joe Magarac, @J.Ross, @Clyde, @AndrewR

    Barack Obama would be an obvious choice to replace Breyer. He is still relatively young, almost universally liked by Democrats, and popular with independents. And there is already precedent for a former president to be appointed to the supreme court: William Taft. But Sleepy Joe won’t pick him because

    1. Biden already painted himself into a corner by promising to nominate a Shaniqua to the court, and I don’t see Barack coming out as trans any time soon.

    2. Obama – while not a “black American” in any meaningful way – has appropriated blacks’ well-known cultural trait of indolence, and he wants to spend the rest of his life enjoying his status as an A-list jetsetter instead of having to do actual work again.

  85. @Paleo Liberal
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Since PR follows a more Spanish definition of ethnicity, the one-drop rule has never applied.

    I’ve met Latin Americans who claimed pure Spanish descent who were clearly mixed.

    I’ve known Latin Americans who looked pure Indian claim to be Mestizo

    Mixtures with African Americans are more problematic. Although there was far more African than Spanish blood in the Caribbean, the African descent is often not noted at all.

    So, if Justice Sotamayor has African blood, is it most likely her family has long since forgotten about it, and is not something she would likely claim.

    Replies: @Anon, @Bardon Kaldian, @PaceLaw

    The point is that extreme racial purists are idiots. No ethnically conscious white person wants miscegenation with blacks; but, if you discover, perhaps by accident, that some white person is of a distant African origin- who gives a hoot?

    Ricardo Duchesne, one of the best minds of the white identity not just in North America, but in the global world, may be of partially African origin. And he has done more for the white European cause than all the IQers put together & combined with moronic neo-Nazis and similar losers.

    Here is his devastating critique of Nial Ferguson’s simplistic nonsense: https://reviews.history.ac.uk/review/1225

    A healthy Euro Puerto-Rican Spaniard of mixed descent, including even English, hammering into ground typical post-modernist miscegenationist rootless Brit.

    https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacedvavjdoztap6qbptcgv4ezfqgakhn7bhbtnvhg46qjvkx7hrljki?filename=%28Studies%20in%20Critical%20Social%20Sciences%2028%29%20Ricardo%20Duchesne%20-%20The%20Uniqueness%20of%20Western%20Civilization%20%28Studies%20in%20Critical%20Social%20Sciences%29%20%20-Brill%20%282011%29.pdf

    http://library.lol/main/F34B410AF0975BD736D3154228CD521D

  86. @International Jew
    @Arclight

    I'd rather enjoy seeing some smart GOP lawyers grill the nominee on Constitutional law and thereby make a fool of her.

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @J1234, @Arclight

    grill the nominee on Constitutional law

    “I can’t answer any question related to issues which may come before me, however I am glad to show you pictures of my adopted children.”

    I’d vote to confirm none of them, and to impeach all of them.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Abolish_public_education

    No, don't ask "Do you think Roe vs Wade was correctly decided?" Ask questions appropriate for a Constitutional Law exam at Yale Law School. Yes, the viewing public won't know what's going on, but all the smart Dem lawyers on the committee will see in the starkest terms that their nominee is a dunce. And that will feel like sulphuric acid on a sunburn.

  87. And of course there’s the half-black/half-Jewish P.O.S. Jussie Smollett.

    I thought he was French.

  88. @Stan Adams
    @Calvin Hobbes

    Lani Guinier was Clinton's first choice for attorney general. Unfortunately, she was forced to withdraw after it came out that she had hired an illegal as a nanny.

    Then Clinton nominated another lady who, lo and behold, ended up having the same problem.

    The third time around, he (or whoever was calling the shots) gave the order to find a childless woman. The job went to 6'2" lesbian Janet Reno.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @AnotherDad, @Wilkey, @Ralph L

    The job went to 6’2″ lesbian Janet Reno.

    Graduate of Coral Gables HS down in your ‘burg of Miami, Stan. Other illustrious graduates of this fine institution include Allan Bakke of Bakke vs. Univ of CA fame, NFL RB Frank Gore, the vile Rep. Steve Cohen, and Al Del Greco.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @William Badwhite

    Reno was a real mover and shaker. (She had Parkinson's.)

    She prosecuted the McDuffie police-brutality case against white police officers who beat a black suspect to death following a high-speed chase. The cops' acquittal led to massive riots in Miami.

    She also authorized the infamous Elian Gonzalez raid.

    Oh, and she had something to do with that incident in Texas involving the weird guy who thought he was Jesus Christ. And didn't that lead to some kind of bombing in Oklahoma? It was all so long ago...

    All that and she still had time to make an unsuccessful run for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. Busy woman.

  89. How smart do you need to be?

    The amazing thing about our juris”prudence” is just how appalling bad it is. From Brown on, pretty much every one of the Supreme Court’s “landmark” decisions is a complete pile of shit. One would have thought we’d hit rock bottom with Blackmun’s doctor loving nonsense in Roe v. Wade … but then we got Obergefell.

    I’m not a lawyer, but i’ve actually read the Constitution a few times, and i could easily write better, clearer, more constitutionally correct decisions than the Supremes. Heck, i’d have to intentionally try to be an obnoxious Constitution hating dickhead in order to do with worse.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @AnotherDad

    'I’m not a lawyer, but i’ve actually read the Constitution a few times, and i could easily write better, clearer, more constitutionally correct decisions than the Supremes. Heck, i’d have to intentionally try to be an obnoxious Constitution hating dickhead in order to do with worse.'

    Sure -- but you also have to avoid being promptly thrown out on your ear by an outraged mob. In a given era, only certain decisions are feasible, practically speaking. Making a quixotic stand on principle will simply lead to there being no Supreme Court at all. At the time, was any other ruling than the one that was made in Plessy vs. Ferguson feasible? In Roe vs. Wade?

    To cite another example, when Franklin Roosevelt became President, the Supreme Court began barring his actions wholesale. He responded by threatening to stuff the Court -- six more justices, all ruling the way I want. Well, that was headed off -- but a teacher of mine observed that thereafter, the Court proved more tolerant of Roosevelt's innovations.

    Principles are all well and good, but in practice, the Court serves as more of a brake than as an altar of eternal constitutional principle. Maybe that's what we actually want.

    , @Bernard
    @AnotherDad


    I’m not a lawyer, but i’ve actually read the Constitution a few times, and i could easily write better, clearer, more constitutionally correct decisions than the Supremes.
     
    After having read many of the courts opinions, I agree. There’s a certain “behind the curtain “ mystique which many apply to the decisions by these judges. As though they parse the US Constitution at depths which are beyond the understanding of most mortals. In fact, quite often the opinions are just arduously twisted metaphors and justification through obfuscation.
  90. @International Jew
    @Arclight

    I'd rather enjoy seeing some smart GOP lawyers grill the nominee on Constitutional law and thereby make a fool of her.

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @J1234, @Arclight

    I’d rather enjoy seeing some smart GOP lawyers grill the nominee on Constitutional law and thereby make a fool of her.

    I hope they have the brains to ask her, “Which to you prefer? The US Constitution or the South African Constitution?” (something they weren’t able to ask RBG…until after she was on the court.)

  91. In point of fact, three of the current nine Justices are women — within one of the ideal balance. There’s one black — which would be just about right. One Hispanic — ditto. A Jew — gross overrepresentation.

    Does no one point out the one clear deficiency? This country is mostly Protestant — but I believe there’s only one of those, and he’s just an Episcopalian.

    I don’t actually care if they do or don’t nominate another white Protestant — but if we’re going to play this game, that’s where the deficiency lies. The numbers of women and blacks is more or less correct — more than correct, if one faces certain facts.

  92. @AnotherDad
    How smart do you need to be?

    The amazing thing about our juris"prudence" is just how appalling bad it is. From Brown on, pretty much every one of the Supreme Court's "landmark" decisions is a complete pile of shit. One would have thought we'd hit rock bottom with Blackmun's doctor loving nonsense in Roe v. Wade ... but then we got Obergefell.

    I'm not a lawyer, but i've actually read the Constitution a few times, and i could easily write better, clearer, more constitutionally correct decisions than the Supremes. Heck, i'd have to intentionally try to be an obnoxious Constitution hating dickhead in order to do with worse.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Bernard

    ‘I’m not a lawyer, but i’ve actually read the Constitution a few times, and i could easily write better, clearer, more constitutionally correct decisions than the Supremes. Heck, i’d have to intentionally try to be an obnoxious Constitution hating dickhead in order to do with worse.’

    Sure — but you also have to avoid being promptly thrown out on your ear by an outraged mob. In a given era, only certain decisions are feasible, practically speaking. Making a quixotic stand on principle will simply lead to there being no Supreme Court at all. At the time, was any other ruling than the one that was made in Plessy vs. Ferguson feasible? In Roe vs. Wade?

    To cite another example, when Franklin Roosevelt became President, the Supreme Court began barring his actions wholesale. He responded by threatening to stuff the Court — six more justices, all ruling the way I want. Well, that was headed off — but a teacher of mine observed that thereafter, the Court proved more tolerant of Roosevelt’s innovations.

    Principles are all well and good, but in practice, the Court serves as more of a brake than as an altar of eternal constitutional principle. Maybe that’s what we actually want.

  93. @R.G. Camara
    @houston 1992


    The PBS series, The Supreme Ct, really presented that there was some heavy mental lifting occurring and justices could be swayed to form coalitions. See episode The Rehnquist Revolution.
     
    PBS is shite, doing a cover. And what they mean by "coalitions" is just politics.

    Why doesn’t Sotomayor have smarter clerks to write her rulings and keep her updated on Covid stats?
     
    She is very likely hiring them the way she was hired: diversity pokemon points. Sotomayor is likely so dumb she doesn't know how much dumber she is than other judges or how her diversity checkpoints boosted her far above her station -- so she hires clerks that are as "diverse" as her without double checking if they're smart enough for the job of covering for her. Unlike, say, Clarence Thomas, who realized it (showing he is more intelligent than Sotomayor) and is ashamed that it may be true.

    I say this honestly: Sotomayor may rank as one of the bottom five S.C. justices of all time in terms of raw IQ. And I'm including Blackmun after his stroke/aneuryism.

    Replies: @ginger bread man

    Can you prove that Clarence thomas is stupider than the other justices, that he’s aware of it, and that he hires other justices based on this? I just never heard this so please send some links to expound.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
    @ginger bread man

    he always followed Scalia (not an independent thinker--major lightweight)

  94. @Clyde
    @Diversity Heretic


    I sincerely hope that Joe Biden nominates Michelle Obama to be an associate justice. Or Oprah Winfrey or Whoopi Goldberg; if competence doesn’t matter........
     
    I am pulling for Whoopi. The most obese and the most ghetto, at least on TV. Pack that porker onto the Supreme Court!

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    If Whoopi Goldberg gets in, the court will really lean left. I mean lean, as in requiring bottle jacks and 6 x 6’s to fix.

    Wait, am I on the right thread?

  95. @Harry Baldwin
    A progressive friend told me the Republicans should have allowed Merrick Garland to get a seat on the Supreme Court "because he is a moderate." I told my friend it didn't matter if a Democratic appointee was a moderate or and extremist, since on any political charged issue the Democratic justices all march in lockstep. For the same reason, it doesn't matter if a Democratic nominee is brilliant or a unqualified affirmative-action hire.

    Replies: @Thirdtwin, @Patrick Gibbs, @Wilkey, @Odin, @J1234

    Merrick Garland has given me a great idea:
    No nominee can be appointed to the SCOTUS until they first serve as US attorney general (and everyone can see just how unconstitutional and partisan they really are.) I’m only partly kidding. AG is an important job, but at least it’s not a life long appointment.

  96. @Hypnotoad666
    Political decisions are always based on politics, favoritism, and tribal membership rather than merit. So maybe it's not fair to criticize a Supreme Court pick merely because it's based on group membership. But that's also exactly why we don't want the rest of the economy to be run according to affirmative action political desisions.

    As one of the Senators said in support of Nixon's (ultimately failed) nomination of G. Harrold Cogswell in 1970:

    There are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.
     
    So true.

    Replies: @ginger bread man

    Not all Supreme Court justices can be of the Hebraic persuasion…

    • Replies: @turtle
    @ginger bread man


    Not all Supreme Court justices can be of the Hebraic persuasion…
     
    Are you sure about that?
    From "The Nine Old (White) Men" to "The Nine Black Jewish Lesbians" in less than 100 years...now that would be "progress." Right.

    Angela Davis was looking strong right up to the Moment of Truth

    Black: check
    Lesbian: check
    Communist: check
    No Law Degree: check (not contaminated by White ideas)
    Ugly: bonus points
    Picture taken with Erich Honecker: bonus points
    Jewish: not
    Strong Supporter of Israel: immediate fail (supports Palestinian civil rights)

    Oh, well...

  97. The Supreme Court should be abolished. It is always wrong. Judicial review has no constitutional justification whatsoever. It’s unelected. It is the most anti-populist segment of the federal government and that’s saying a lot.

  98. @Stan Adams
    @Calvin Hobbes

    Lani Guinier was Clinton's first choice for attorney general. Unfortunately, she was forced to withdraw after it came out that she had hired an illegal as a nanny.

    Then Clinton nominated another lady who, lo and behold, ended up having the same problem.

    The third time around, he (or whoever was calling the shots) gave the order to find a childless woman. The job went to 6'2" lesbian Janet Reno.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @AnotherDad, @Wilkey, @Ralph L

    Lani Guinier was Clinton’s first choice for attorney general. Unfortunately, she was forced to withdraw after it came out that she had hired an illegal as a nanny.

    No, it was Zoe Baird.

    Clinton’s picks were:
    1) Zoe Baird (Jewess) — nannygated; illegal alien nanny and tax cheat
    2) Kimba Wood (Playboy Bunny) — nannygated even though she actually had paid the required taxes on her illegal alien nany and thus had not broken any law
    3) Janet Reno (Lesbian)

    ~~

    The idea there is some benefit having women in any of these legal, political roles is misguided. Be nice to have the option to live in society that did not do that. (And people who want to live in a society run by women could choose that.) But having childless women “leaders” is folly.

    • Agree: JMcG
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @AnotherDad

    You're right. I stand corrected.

    Clinton nominated Guinier to a civil-rights post but dropped her because, in 1993, her support of explicit racial quotas made her confirmation impossible. His poll numbers were down and he was trying to curry congressional support for Hillarycare.

  99. @Calvin Hobbes
    @Anon


    Biden should nominate Shirley Q. Liquor.
     
    I had no idea what “Shirley Q. Liquor” was supposed to mean. For those interested, more than you want to know here:

    Shirley Q. Liquor: The Most Dangerous Comedian in America
    Why in the world is a gay white man putting on blackface and performing as a boozing welfare mother who drives a Cadillac? Introducing Shirley Q. Liquor, the last minstrel

    https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/shirley-q-liquor-the-most-dangerous-comedian-in-america-188700/

    Here’s an example of “her” act:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCGBK1E0_uQ

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    I was in tears! Thank you Calvin, and Anon #265 for introducing me to Shirley Q. Liquor.

    I get so much good stuff from iSteve and the commenters. No [Thanks]’s left, so thank you also, Penn Tothal, for that story.

  100. @Altai
    That we're down to 2 Jews on the Supreme Court and now one of the last ones is about to be replaced by a black woman (With as far as I can see no commentary on it) when the first 'black' president was even nominating Kagan is an illustration of Bari Weiss's nightmare.

    From now on Republicans may just appoint white Catholics (And maybe Protestants? Seems like it's harder to find qualified Evangelicals and almost all other Protestants aren't anti-abortion) and Dems black and brown people. Jews are white as far as US politics is now concerned and it's scaring lots of people, not just Bari Weiss and not just Americans.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9O3N1HadPPA

    Replies: @George, @PhysicistDave, @SFG, @anon, @ginger bread man

    Competent Jews handing over the mantle of leadership to less competent blacks is something I first noticed when Jon Stewart quit the daily show in 2015. I pretty much worshipped Jon Stewart for his insightful and genuinely funny takes on everything from the hypocrisy in Washington DC to the absurdity of our wars in the Middle East to standing up for for 9/11 firefighters. He was left of center, but it didn’t really matter because he seemed to have common sense and a hell of a gift for comedic timing.

    He was vocal about wanting a minority to be his replacement because the world needs more minorities in places of visibility.

    The left leaning segment of his audience wanted Jessica Williams, an attractive black woman correspondent, to replace Stewart. She was not so funny, but her black woman attitude was important for the show’s diversity. When she wasn’t chosen, the libtards were so hurt that a “qualified black woman” was overlooked. Williams for her part took it with grace and said she didn’t think the had enough experience to run the show.

    He ended up picking Trevor noah, a half black South African comedian to be his replacement. He was the host of a Daily Show type program in South Africa, and since he’s half black, he gets the diversity points. The only problem is that he’s not as funny or as smart as Jon Stewart. The show has become one big DEI grievance session. Much like SNL, they’ve had to make serious cuts to their comedy to accommodate this new editorial take. To his credit, Trevor Noah has kept the show going for 7 seasons, although I have barely watched the show since.

    To be fair, I do come across some of his clips on YouTube and occasionally I chuckle. I just don’t respect his political takes or find him nearly as funny as Stewart. The point is, he is like the Obama of the Daily show. A Half-white African diversity hire who isn’t as qualified as his predecessor, but who made his name by stoking the flames of racial animosity.

    Then again, as a white Jewish male, I might just be implicitly biased in favor of Stewart and against the half white Trevor Noah.

  101. @AnotherDad
    @Stan Adams


    Lani Guinier was Clinton’s first choice for attorney general. Unfortunately, she was forced to withdraw after it came out that she had hired an illegal as a nanny.
     
    No, it was Zoe Baird.

    Clinton's picks were:
    1) Zoe Baird (Jewess) -- nannygated; illegal alien nanny and tax cheat
    2) Kimba Wood (Playboy Bunny) -- nannygated even though she actually had paid the required taxes on her illegal alien nany and thus had not broken any law
    3) Janet Reno (Lesbian)

    ~~

    The idea there is some benefit having women in any of these legal, political roles is misguided. Be nice to have the option to live in society that did not do that. (And people who want to live in a society run by women could choose that.) But having childless women "leaders" is folly.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    You’re right. I stand corrected.

    Clinton nominated Guinier to a civil-rights post but dropped her because, in 1993, her support of explicit racial quotas made her confirmation impossible. His poll numbers were down and he was trying to curry congressional support for Hillarycare.

  102. How about the fat girl who was catfishing Trayvonn Martin? I would pay cash money to watch her tell one of the men, “that’s ignorant sir”. She only has sixty or seventy years left. A lifetime of entertainment.

    • Replies: @Calvin Hobbes
    @TWS


    How about the fat girl who was catfishing Trayvon Martin?
     
    Trayvon would not have given stupid, ugly, fat girl Rachel Jeantel the time of day, and there was a real (and cute and relatively smart) “Diamond Eugene” that Trayvon was talking to on the phone before he tried to beat Zimmerman to death.

    Documentary Claims Trayvon Martin Prosecution Hoaxed America

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/26/documentary-claims-trayvon-martin-prosecution-hoaxed-america/
  103. Blacks, despite being only 13% of the population, are able to hold Democrats hostage because of swing-state math. Their votes, and dirty ballot stuffing, are needed in cities located in swing states to keep those states Democratic. Clean up the machines and those states would vote Republican.

  104. @International Jew
    @Arclight

    I'd rather enjoy seeing some smart GOP lawyers grill the nominee on Constitutional law and thereby make a fool of her.

    Replies: @Abolish_public_education, @J1234, @Arclight

    Me too, but the news and DNC will grab clips of that and spin it as bad white man talks down to amazing black lady. I would bet my paycheck that during the confirmation hearing some media figure makes a master/slave analogy because of some hard questions. The less ammo we give them the better.

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Arclight

    If there was one thing we all needed to learn from Trump it's that pissing off the NYTimes is a good thing.

    Not to mention that making a fool of the nominee will demoralize the Dem elite — not the dunderhead affirmative action babies but the Harvard Law profs and old guard NYT journalists and everyone else who came up in old meritocratic America. Nothing will sting those people so much as to have it rubbed in that they associate with idiots.

    Replies: @Meretricious

  105. Steve, your point is completely wrong. The Court needs now far more intellectual ability, not less as the real crux is avoiding hot and violent civil war through destructive actions on race and Whites as Genetically Evil.

    It may be unavoidable anyway, worship of black people as holy racial redeemers of original White people sin can and will eventually lead to that. But the primary purpose of the Supreme Court is not counting up Dem/Republican coalitions since they are basically the same anyway, but avoiding Rwanda.

    If the court were to rule for example, that no Whites can be hired or KEPT as police or military officers for “equity” and/or that White people’s property really belongs to blacks, or that blacks are exempt from pretty much all laws for “equity” then that could and would kick off a hot civil war as those rulings were implemented.

    The ONLY real duty of the Court is to avoid both doing anything stupid OR inaction that could kick off the brewing civil war in the hope that time and space will help something turn up and create a fix or patch to head the whole thing off. This above all requires thinking through the likely result in society of ordering for example that Whites be denied medical treatment in favor of blacks, and hispanics somewhat between in the racial caste system. Already Utah, Texas, Wisconsin, New York, and other states deny Whites treatment for COVID-19 in favor of blacks following NIH and CDC rules.

    If the court either makes or allows (by inaction) this to become law of the land in all places, we get hot civil war the way Dredd Scott made the first one a formality.

  106. @William Badwhite
    @Stan Adams


    The job went to 6’2″ lesbian Janet Reno.
     
    Graduate of Coral Gables HS down in your 'burg of Miami, Stan. Other illustrious graduates of this fine institution include Allan Bakke of Bakke vs. Univ of CA fame, NFL RB Frank Gore, the vile Rep. Steve Cohen, and Al Del Greco.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    Reno was a real mover and shaker. (She had Parkinson’s.)

    She prosecuted the McDuffie police-brutality case against white police officers who beat a black suspect to death following a high-speed chase. The cops’ acquittal led to massive riots in Miami.

    She also authorized the infamous Elian Gonzalez raid.

    Oh, and she had something to do with that incident in Texas involving the weird guy who thought he was Jesus Christ. And didn’t that lead to some kind of bombing in Oklahoma? It was all so long ago…

    All that and she still had time to make an unsuccessful run for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. Busy woman.

  107. @Charon
    @Redneck farmer

    And then there's the necessity for laws regarding hair-touching, not to mention white wimmenz tryna steal yo successful Black Man.

    Replies: @Dmon

    I had almost forgotten about that. No wonder Anita Hill hated Clarence Thomas so much.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Thomas

  108. @Stan Adams
    @Calvin Hobbes

    Lani Guinier was Clinton's first choice for attorney general. Unfortunately, she was forced to withdraw after it came out that she had hired an illegal as a nanny.

    Then Clinton nominated another lady who, lo and behold, ended up having the same problem.

    The third time around, he (or whoever was calling the shots) gave the order to find a childless woman. The job went to 6'2" lesbian Janet Reno.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @AnotherDad, @Wilkey, @Ralph L

    Lani Guinier was Clinton’s first choice for attorney general. Unfortunately, she was forced to withdraw after it came out that she had hired an illegal as a nanny.

    Speaking of illegal nannies, there was a news story the other day about a Florida legislator, Lauren Book (D), who was molested by her nanny for six years, until she was 17 years old. Book’s nanny, Waldina Flores, was an an obese illegal woman from Honduras.

    Lauren Book’s father is a prominent an wealthy Florida lobbyist, so of course the court threw the book at Flores. She was originally sentenced to 10 years, but her sentence was extended to 25 years after she attempted to contact Book while still in prison.

    So the citizens of Florida get to pay to lock up a fat illegal Honduran immigrant for 25 years all because Lauren Book’s wealthy father didn’t want to drop an extra \$2,000 or so a year for a legal nanny.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Wilkey


    Lauren Book (D), who was molested by her nanny for six years, until she was 17 years old
     
    Let's be real. After a certain age, it is literally impossible to be molested against your will more than once by the same person.
  109. @Stan Adams
    @Calvin Hobbes

    Lani Guinier was Clinton's first choice for attorney general. Unfortunately, she was forced to withdraw after it came out that she had hired an illegal as a nanny.

    Then Clinton nominated another lady who, lo and behold, ended up having the same problem.

    The third time around, he (or whoever was calling the shots) gave the order to find a childless woman. The job went to 6'2" lesbian Janet Reno.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @AnotherDad, @Wilkey, @Ralph L

    No, he chose two white chicks (Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood) who had illegal nannies. Guinier was chosen for the DoJ Civil rights job, but her anti-democratic, non-race-blind writings (and Clinton’s spinelessness) tripped her up.

    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Ralph L

    Yeah, I got the names screwed up in my head.

    In the span of one month, Clinton fired Guinier, hired Gergen, nominated Ginsburg, and visited Ginza while attending the G7 conference.

    He took Hillary with him to Tokyo. Here she is seen negotiating with Yakuza agents to arrange the suicide of Vince Foster:



    https://i.ibb.co/JyXBpRH/573f7de81f00b.webp

  110. The last person I’d want making legal decisions that affect me or anyone else in America is a black lady.

  111. In the last 70 years the US Supreme Court has morphed from a judicial entity, to a policy making institution. Interpreting and applying the US Constitution to cases before it became an obstacle to a greater purpose, rather than the purpose itself. It is irretrievably broken and deserves none of the reverence it receives. A specified term would be a step in the right direction.

    The physical features of the judges are just a sideshow, if they’re nominated by a Democrat, there will be 100% adherence to the left’s agenda.

  112. @Hibernian
    @Whereismyhandle

    The clerks are almost all recent graduates, elite ones to be sure, and I think a Justice completely turning over the job to them, except for rubber stamping by the Justice, and the Justice covering conferences and oral argument, would soon be apparent. I don't doubt that it's happened on occasion.

    Replies: @scrivener3

    If you think a Justice knows the law better than a recent graduate of a top law school, you are probably mistaken. As for research of the issue, the clerks do it all, the Justice relies totally on them. supreme court clerks all clerked for appellate justices first maybe two different ones. They are late 20’s early 30’s and not children.

    Finally, the Law is not terribly intellectual. As a first year instructor said, it is just reading. You need to abstract relevant facts from not relevant facts which is a special sort of skill. Requires an ability to follow logic if you want rule of law applying equally to all people no matter what their circumstances.

    Its not brain surgery or rocket science.

  113. @AnotherDad
    How smart do you need to be?

    The amazing thing about our juris"prudence" is just how appalling bad it is. From Brown on, pretty much every one of the Supreme Court's "landmark" decisions is a complete pile of shit. One would have thought we'd hit rock bottom with Blackmun's doctor loving nonsense in Roe v. Wade ... but then we got Obergefell.

    I'm not a lawyer, but i've actually read the Constitution a few times, and i could easily write better, clearer, more constitutionally correct decisions than the Supremes. Heck, i'd have to intentionally try to be an obnoxious Constitution hating dickhead in order to do with worse.

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @Bernard

    I’m not a lawyer, but i’ve actually read the Constitution a few times, and i could easily write better, clearer, more constitutionally correct decisions than the Supremes.

    After having read many of the courts opinions, I agree. There’s a certain “behind the curtain “ mystique which many apply to the decisions by these judges. As though they parse the US Constitution at depths which are beyond the understanding of most mortals. In fact, quite often the opinions are just arduously twisted metaphors and justification through obfuscation.

  114. My impression is that when the case involves political/social issues, judges disagree. But if the case does not have a bearing on politics, say a contract dispute, there is much agreement among judges.

    • Agree: Bernard
  115. @I, Libertine

    An interesting question about a Supreme Court justice is how important is competence?
     
    I can't speak from first hand knowledge about The Supremes, but I doubt that the situation there isn't much different from lower courts. "Appellate court judge" is a hard job to do well, but an easy one to fake. Judges have squads of extremely smart and well-educated clerks who are, even for hard-working jurists, the actual authors and editors of the opinions that the judges autograph. Judges may (and many of the elderly do) simply tell their high-energy, ambitious clerks what result they want to reach, and the clerks then produce a document that make that result appear to be the one compelled by our jurisprudence.

    And The Supremes get the best of the best.

    Replies: @Bernard

    Judges may (and many of the elderly do) simply tell their high-energy, ambitious clerks what result they want to reach, and the clerks then produce a document that make that result appear to be the one compelled by our jurisprudence.

    And there is the problem in a nutshell, thanks.

  116. @Arclight
    I am not surprised Biden plans to pick a black woman, since this group are the most dog-loyal Democrats in existence and the party is obsessed with tokenism. What is surprising is that he just came right out and said it rather than just produce a nominee that checks these boxes after a couple of weeks "search" for the supposedly best qualified pick.

    Obviously the polling for Biden and the Dems is bad these days, but it must be worse than I thought that he wouldn't even try to pretend this was anything other than a bald faced attempt to rally flagging support with his base. As Steve notes, the ideology of the pick really doesn't matter as SCOTUS is effectively a legislature for legal matters at this point. The GOP would be smart to not make too much of a fuss and vote whomever it is right through so they can stay focused on the multiple issues in which they currently have the advantage. The left's playbook of calling all things racist is losing its power a bit, but a bunch of old white men lining up to slag a black lady will provide a lot of cheap fodder for the base.

    Replies: @Brutusale, @International Jew, @Ian Smith

    Biden would win my vote if he nominated Diamond or Silk for the job.

  117. @Anon
    @Paleo Liberal


    So, if Justice Sotamayor has African blood, is it most likely her family has long since forgotten about it, and is not something she would likely claim.
     
    Does she not look like she has African ancestry?

    Replies: @Meretricious

    no, Sotomayor does not appear African to my eye; she looks indigenous/Hispanic

    • Agree: PaceLaw
  118. @ginger bread man
    @R.G. Camara

    Can you prove that Clarence thomas is stupider than the other justices, that he’s aware of it, and that he hires other justices based on this? I just never heard this so please send some links to expound.

    Replies: @Meretricious

    he always followed Scalia (not an independent thinker–major lightweight)

  119. @Martin Davies
    Clarence Thomas should just announce that he now identifies as a woman. Checkmate Bigots!

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Clarence Thomas should just announce that he now identifies as a woman.

    And a Jew. He’s already been both a Catholic and a Protestant.

    John Kerry just missed this trifecta, hat trick, or whatever. He has Puritan ancestors, but wasn’t one himself. Al Smith seems to have had grandparents from four different– and convenient– ethnicities: Italian, Irish, German, and English. He also supported and signed bills to take his state out of Prohibition enforcement– my kind of sanctuary!

  120. @Meretricious
    @Jack D

    Jack, with all due respect, you don't know that blacks are getting affirmative action re clerkships, law review, etc? The reason black quotas are so much more insidious than Catholic or Jewish quotas on the Supreme Court is simply because of the much lower IQ of "elite" black lawyers.

    Re posters who maintain Biden will pick half Jew/half black--don't count on it. Remember, this is a blatant diversity hire, so Uncle Joey will want to pick a 100% African American.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Just like Kamala and Obama?

    Clyburn has a nice ADOS woman picked out for him and Joe owes him but I’m not sure he owes him THAT much.

    Of course there is AA in law school but AA is limited – they don’t pick Tynisha off the street corner in N. Philly and put her in Harvard Law. Maybe Leondra should have gone to NYU instead of Yale but she’s not a complete idiot, especially after her clerks do her work for her.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
  121. “Well, that’s old time politics, with an emphasis on “old.””

    But when the GOP engages in similar shenanigans, nary a peep from Mr. Sailer. Maintaining the party line intact, right, iSteve?

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    @Corvinus

    Keep trying Corvirus, one day he'll notice you

    https://i.embed.ly/1/image/Resize?key=92b31102528511e1a2ec4040d3dc5c07&width=1200&grow=true&url=http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2395/2516284954_0ecba1b807.jpg

  122. @TWS
    How about the fat girl who was catfishing Trayvonn Martin? I would pay cash money to watch her tell one of the men, "that's ignorant sir". She only has sixty or seventy years left. A lifetime of entertainment.

    Replies: @Calvin Hobbes

    How about the fat girl who was catfishing Trayvon Martin?

    Trayvon would not have given stupid, ugly, fat girl Rachel Jeantel the time of day, and there was a real (and cute and relatively smart) “Diamond Eugene” that Trayvon was talking to on the phone before he tried to beat Zimmerman to death.

    Documentary Claims Trayvon Martin Prosecution Hoaxed America

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/26/documentary-claims-trayvon-martin-prosecution-hoaxed-america/

    • Thanks: TWS
  123. I am so sick and tired of the playground that the lawyers have crafted for themselves.

    • A lawyer-lawmaker introduces a bill. It gets referred to several lawyer-staffed committees, to be sure that it’s constitutional. It then moves to the lawyer-dominated floors for final consideration. It passes.

    • They send it over to the governor (himself often a lawyer) for signature. He first has his lawyers review it. To be sure that it’s constitutional. He signs.

    • Then activist lawyers challenge the law as being unconstitutional. The case goes before a superior court lawyer-judge. Lawyers from all “stakeholders” (except taxpayers) come out to argue for/against. The judge rules, and the case gets appealed to the state lawyer-supremes.

    • The justices hold a hearing. More lawyers argue. Then the justices argue among themselves behind closed doors. They issue a ruling.

    • Then activist lawyers come up with a bunch of ridiculous, equal protection and interstate commerce arguments in order to get some federal lawyer-judge to hear the case. He goes for the idea.

    • The case then percolates up through the federal lawyer-courts.

    Finally, the Court rules 5-4 .. Then, ten years later, the slightly tweaked issue comes back.

    Full employment for lawyers.

  124. I am shocked that after plowing through 124 comments here on this subject, no one has mentioned what I think is the most shocking part of this current SC retirement drama:

    Just imagine what would happen if Corporate president Muggles, (a privately owned business) announced on Twitter that he would only consider interviewing an Asian male for his CFO.

    Wouldn’t the DoJ be on him like a bear to honey?

    So why is Pres. Joe able to illegally state that he was “only” going to consider a person of a certain skin color and gender? What about the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Doesn’t this prohibit racial discrimination in hiring, both public and private? You can’t run ads like this, but Pres Joe can repeatedly brag about him doing so?

    Why isn’t this front page news?

    (Yes, there will be feeble excuses about “this is an exception” etc. et. al., but the Senate has to confirm his choice. So can the executive/legislative branches simply ignore black letter law?)

    If this point has been made elsewhere, great. Thus far I haven’t read or seen it.

  125. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    @Calvin Hobbes

    "Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier was (she just died on January 7, 2022) half-Jewish. My impression was that she was all-black politically."

    You don't seem to understand the rules. "All-black politically" means effectively "militantly and unrelentingly anti-white" which means, in effect, in full service of Jewish goals. How/why do you think they get elevated in the first place?

    All black operatives in politics, law, academia and economics are de facto Jewish operatives because even if they're pure blackety-black to the nth degree, they are still Jewish cat's-paws who serve the never-changing Jewish goal of degrading and destroying white Christian America.

    Replies: @Moses

    All black operatives in politics, law, academia and economics are de facto Jewish operatives because even if they’re pure blackety-black to the nth degree, they are still Jewish cat’s-paws who serve the never-changing Jewish goal of degrading and destroying white Christian America.

    Sadly true.

    We Jews do not feel safe in a supermajority White society. With lots of non-White groups we don’t stick out as much. And without a unified White supermajority it’s much harder for Whites to mount any more Kristallnachts against us.

    My fellow co-ethnics have no love for the Schwartzes. They are merely a useful cudgel to wield against you Whites.

  126. @Ralph L
    @Stan Adams

    No, he chose two white chicks (Zoe Baird, Kimba Wood) who had illegal nannies. Guinier was chosen for the DoJ Civil rights job, but her anti-democratic, non-race-blind writings (and Clinton's spinelessness) tripped her up.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    Yeah, I got the names screwed up in my head.

    In the span of one month, Clinton fired Guinier, hired Gergen, nominated Ginsburg, and visited Ginza while attending the G7 conference.

    He took Hillary with him to Tokyo. Here she is seen negotiating with Yakuza agents to arrange the suicide of Vince Foster:

    [MORE]

  127. @Arclight
    @International Jew

    Me too, but the news and DNC will grab clips of that and spin it as bad white man talks down to amazing black lady. I would bet my paycheck that during the confirmation hearing some media figure makes a master/slave analogy because of some hard questions. The less ammo we give them the better.

    Replies: @International Jew

    If there was one thing we all needed to learn from Trump it’s that pissing off the NYTimes is a good thing.

    Not to mention that making a fool of the nominee will demoralize the Dem elite — not the dunderhead affirmative action babies but the Harvard Law profs and old guard NYT journalists and everyone else who came up in old meritocratic America. Nothing will sting those people so much as to have it rubbed in that they associate with idiots.

    • Replies: @Meretricious
    @International Jew

    --"the Democratic elite" is a very funny term becususe it's bifurcated between those with actual accomplishments and the affirmative action impostors (the "Elite" and "Elite Light," respectively). And so it goes . . .

  128. @Abolish_public_education
    @International Jew

    grill the nominee on Constitutional law

    "I can't answer any question related to issues which may come before me, however I am glad to show you pictures of my adopted children."

    I'd vote to confirm none of them, and to impeach all of them.

    Replies: @International Jew

    No, don’t ask “Do you think Roe vs Wade was correctly decided?” Ask questions appropriate for a Constitutional Law exam at Yale Law School. Yes, the viewing public won’t know what’s going on, but all the smart Dem lawyers on the committee will see in the starkest terms that their nominee is a dunce. And that will feel like sulphuric acid on a sunburn.

  129. @ginger bread man
    @Hypnotoad666

    Not all Supreme Court justices can be of the Hebraic persuasion...

    Replies: @turtle

    Not all Supreme Court justices can be of the Hebraic persuasion…

    Are you sure about that?
    From “The Nine Old (White) Men” to “The Nine Black Jewish Lesbians” in less than 100 years…now that would be “progress.” Right.

    Angela Davis was looking strong right up to the Moment of Truth

    Black: check
    Lesbian: check
    Communist: check
    No Law Degree: check (not contaminated by White ideas)
    Ugly: bonus points
    Picture taken with Erich Honecker: bonus points
    Jewish: not
    Strong Supporter of Israel: immediate fail (supports Palestinian civil rights)

    Oh, well…

  130. @International Jew
    @Arclight

    If there was one thing we all needed to learn from Trump it's that pissing off the NYTimes is a good thing.

    Not to mention that making a fool of the nominee will demoralize the Dem elite — not the dunderhead affirmative action babies but the Harvard Law profs and old guard NYT journalists and everyone else who came up in old meritocratic America. Nothing will sting those people so much as to have it rubbed in that they associate with idiots.

    Replies: @Meretricious

    –“the Democratic elite” is a very funny term becususe it’s bifurcated between those with actual accomplishments and the affirmative action impostors (the “Elite” and “Elite Light,” respectively). And so it goes . . .

  131. @Reg Cæsar

    the 1824 “Corrupt Bargain”
     
    Neither 1824 nor 1876 were corrupt bargains. 1824 was your basic parliamentary coalescence deal. Jackson fell far short of a majority, and the others ganged up on him. Happens all the time abroad.

    The smart one was John C Calhoun. He ran for VP on the top two tickets, and sailed to an unambiguous victory.

    Only the Presidency was decided by Congress in 1824, and only the Vice Presidency in 1836. So the Twelfth Amendment worked in every election, just not for every office.

    Replies: @res, @ScarletNumber

    Neither 1824 nor 1876 were corrupt bargains

    You have offered no evidence supporting the bolded part of your statement

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @ScarletNumber


    You have offered no evidence supporting the bolded part of your statement
     
    A Supreme Court Chief Justice backs me up!


    https://pictures.abebooks.com/isbn/9780375713217-us.jpg

    Rehnquist argued that Justice Joseph Bradley, the deciding vote on the commission, really had little choice in what to do. (Also, Bradley, Hayes, and Tilden were all honorable men, despite being surrounded by scoundrels in every direction.) He also points out the irony of Democrats of the day pushing for federal intervention while the Republicans argued for states' rights, i.e., accept the states' certificates as valid without further investigation. They said Congress and its child, the commission, lacked the authority.

  132. @Corvinus
    "Well, that’s old time politics, with an emphasis on “old.”"

    But when the GOP engages in similar shenanigans, nary a peep from Mr. Sailer. Maintaining the party line intact, right, iSteve?

    Replies: @William Badwhite

    Keep trying Corvirus, one day he’ll notice you

  133. @Ghost of Bull Moose
    I gotta admit that if would be pretty funny if Joe promised the blegs that his VP would be a black woman and his first Court nominee would be a black woman, and it's the same woman.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    Which would finally answer the question: Must the Vice President recuse herself from her own Senate confirmation vote?

  134. @Wilkey
    @Stan Adams


    Lani Guinier was Clinton’s first choice for attorney general. Unfortunately, she was forced to withdraw after it came out that she had hired an illegal as a nanny.
     
    Speaking of illegal nannies, there was a news story the other day about a Florida legislator, Lauren Book (D), who was molested by her nanny for six years, until she was 17 years old. Book's nanny, Waldina Flores, was an an obese illegal woman from Honduras.

    Lauren Book's father is a prominent an wealthy Florida lobbyist, so of course the court threw the book at Flores. She was originally sentenced to 10 years, but her sentence was extended to 25 years after she attempted to contact Book while still in prison.

    So the citizens of Florida get to pay to lock up a fat illegal Honduran immigrant for 25 years all because Lauren Book's wealthy father didn't want to drop an extra $2,000 or so a year for a legal nanny.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    Lauren Book (D), who was molested by her nanny for six years, until she was 17 years old

    Let’s be real. After a certain age, it is literally impossible to be molested against your will more than once by the same person.

  135. @Stan Adams
    @PhysicistDave


    I’ve been following Breyer’s career since before he got on the Court.
     
    There was a story that Breyer was Clinton's first choice for his first nomination (a few months into his presidency) but got knocked off the list after the in-person interview went poorly. So Billy Boy went with the runner-up, a fetching gal named Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    Then, a year later, another vacancy came up and Breyer finally got the nod. Presumably he did a better job of sucking up to the president the second time around.

    Replies: @Daniel Williams

    Presumably he did a better job of sucking up to the president

    And if there was ever a US president who recognized a good job of sucking up better than Clinton, I’d love to hear about him.

  136. @TyRade
    But what happened to 'leading by example'? If affirmative action is good enough for the Supreme Court, it's good enough for the unwashed too - is surely the (unfortunate) signal. Oh, and how now (brown judge) can the Court rule against Harvard's affirmative action 'hiring'? I guess one signal is that fish still rot from the top.

    Replies: @Hannah Katz, @Bill Jones

    how now (brown judge)

    I saw how close you came there. Especially if indeed it is a woman.

  137. @SteveRogers42
    Hello, Justice Harris! And Hello, Vice-President Clinton!

    Replies: @Anon

    How would Hillary be confirmed by a 50-50 without Kamasutra as the tiebreaker?
    Looking at you, Mittens.

  138. @ScarletNumber
    @Reg Cæsar


    Neither 1824 nor 1876 were corrupt bargains
     
    You have offered no evidence supporting the bolded part of your statement

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    You have offered no evidence supporting the bolded part of your statement

    A Supreme Court Chief Justice backs me up!

    Rehnquist argued that Justice Joseph Bradley, the deciding vote on the commission, really had little choice in what to do. (Also, Bradley, Hayes, and Tilden were all honorable men, despite being surrounded by scoundrels in every direction.) He also points out the irony of Democrats of the day pushing for federal intervention while the Republicans argued for states’ rights, i.e., accept the states’ certificates as valid without further investigation. They said Congress and its child, the commission, lacked the authority.

  139. All the protestations about finding the “best” jurist “regardless of race or gender (sic)” miss the point — it’s not about qualifications, Solomonic wisdom, or scholarly knowledge of the Constitution; it’s about raw power. The so-called Democrats believe in minority rule, at least while whites are still the majority.

  140. @SF
    @anon

    Sotomayor looks about as black as Kamala Harris, and more black than Megan Markle, both of whom are about 1/4 or a little more African. Somewhere I read that the average Puerto Rican is 29% African and 9% indigenous, although I can't find the link for that exact number. (Maybe in one of Steve's old columns)
    If it weren't for the cultural differences, Sotomayor would have no problem being accepted as African-American.

    Replies: @PaceLaw

    Based on the below article SF, you are close as to the African percentage (27%) but way off on the indigenous amount (61%). More importantly though, Sotomayor views herself as a “wise Latina” (like a character out of the kids movie “Encanto”) and has not knowingly ever identified as black. That’s the key point.

    https://indiancountrytoday.com/.amp/archive/indigenous-puerto-rico-dna-evidence-upsets-established-history

  141. @Paleo Liberal
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Since PR follows a more Spanish definition of ethnicity, the one-drop rule has never applied.

    I’ve met Latin Americans who claimed pure Spanish descent who were clearly mixed.

    I’ve known Latin Americans who looked pure Indian claim to be Mestizo

    Mixtures with African Americans are more problematic. Although there was far more African than Spanish blood in the Caribbean, the African descent is often not noted at all.

    So, if Justice Sotamayor has African blood, is it most likely her family has long since forgotten about it, and is not something she would likely claim.

    Replies: @Anon, @Bardon Kaldian, @PaceLaw

    Well said Paleo. Most Puerto Ricans and other Latinos view being black as being very black in color, as if directly from Uganda or Nigeria. The overwhelming majority of Latinos who do have some percentage of black ancestry do not acknowledge it at all, unless it becomes beneficial to them in these politically correct times.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @PaceLaw


    Based on the below article SF, you are close as to the African percentage (27%) but way off on the indigenous amount (61%). More importantly though, Sotomayor views herself as a “wise Latina”
     
    It is questionable to claim that Sotomayor doesn’t identify with other people of color or with Blacks. But be that as it may, the point is, what is her ancestry, not what does she identify with. If she is a quarter African, she is a justice with African ancestry.

    In addition, who is more likely to identify with descendants of American slaves: someone from Puerto Rico with a quarter African slave ancestry, or someone who is half Jewish, half Nigerian immigrant?
  142. Anon[149] • Disclaimer says:
    @PaceLaw
    @Paleo Liberal

    Well said Paleo. Most Puerto Ricans and other Latinos view being black as being very black in color, as if directly from Uganda or Nigeria. The overwhelming majority of Latinos who do have some percentage of black ancestry do not acknowledge it at all, unless it becomes beneficial to them in these politically correct times.

    Replies: @Anon

    Based on the below article SF, you are close as to the African percentage (27%) but way off on the indigenous amount (61%). More importantly though, Sotomayor views herself as a “wise Latina”

    It is questionable to claim that Sotomayor doesn’t identify with other people of color or with Blacks. But be that as it may, the point is, what is her ancestry, not what does she identify with. If she is a quarter African, she is a justice with African ancestry.

    In addition, who is more likely to identify with descendants of American slaves: someone from Puerto Rico with a quarter African slave ancestry, or someone who is half Jewish, half Nigerian immigrant?

  143. The media made a big deal about justice Sotomayor’s being a hispanic woman, but if you dig deeper you find that she’s pretty right-wing anti-labor and pro-corporate.

    https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2009/06/01/101001.htm

    Expect something similar with Biden’s nominee for Supreme Court justice. A big show will be made about race and gender, but the real record of the candidate on matters of substance will be conveniently ignored.

  144. @Achmed E. Newman
    @megabar


    Steve’s point is that there is no hard external correction for a Supreme Court judge.
     
    Yes there is, though. People, not least those judges themselves, just don't want a precedent set. Impeachment by the House and Senate is an option.

    Way back in 1804 Justice Samuel Chase, appointed by George Washington, was impeached for "acting in a partisan manner during several trials". He was not convicted. (That's like Clinton and Trump.). Much later, in 1969, Lyndon Johnson appointee Abe Fortas resigned under the threat of impeachment (as Richard Nixon did 5 years later) due to his corruption.

    Not enough Americans ever realize the power that was given to them by the Founders and those who made the State Constitutions. All kinds of appointed/elected officials can be recalled.

    Replies: @Diversity Heretic, @megabar

    > Yes there is, though. People, not least those judges themselves, just don’t want a precedent set. Impeachment by the House and Senate is an option.

    I would argue that impeachment doesn’t qualify as hard external correction. It is subjective and political in nature. So long as politicians and voters agree to interpret a judge’s actions as acceptable — even when they cause harm — the judge will stay on.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Becker update V1.3.2
How America was neoconned into World War IV
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
The Hidden History of the 1930s and 1940s