SCOTUS Justice Breyer has announced his retirement. Biden has already pledged a black woman. Is this diversity or best for the job?

[Pterodon]

[libsaretards]

Biden is actually breaking the law by using race and gender as a factor for a hiring decision. Look up Title VII. BOTH of these factors are specifically listed as off limits for consideration for employment. The president is not above the law. He is caving in to political pressure from his party, most of whom do not even know the law very well. Biden should be making his pick SOLELY on qualifications. To use any other factor is illegal. If the Republicans somehow gain 67 seats in the senate this would be an impeachable offense. Also, after leaving office Biden could be prosecuted criminally.

[fireforeffect]

This is Racism, pure and simple.

[BCA6010]

It's virtue signaling. The Democrats appoint justices exclusively to be sock puppets to make excuses justifying unconstitutional policy that benefits the party and are completely uninterested in the actual role of the Supreme Court. The chances of his appointee actually bringing anything of value to the table regardless of demographics are virtually zero.

Breyer is probably the single most forgettable member on the court though, so realistically speaking, the worst case scenario is they put some insufferable moron on there who is basically a Sotomayor 2.0. there's been talk that it'll be Kamala Harris in order to open the door for someone more popular to take over the office and 2024 election cycle, but I think such a move would be extremely foolish for the Democrats and just further bury them for the next election cycle. The best thing they could do is unearth an obscure left-leaning moderate who can actually make compelling arguments on a constitutional basis while simultaneously hitting the brakes on the crazy.

[OpenClose]

I saw the news and had REALLY hoped Breyer was a Red installment. But alas, he is not.

Either way, I fully expect Mitch McConnell to stretch logic to its absolute limit and probably literally bomb the white house or dismantle the government for 2 years to avoid the confirmation, and for Fox News to get everyone rooting for it with some really, REALLY stretched reasoning.

But no, "diversity" should NOT be an influencing factor in the slightest when talking about the courts. We're talking about the interpretation of the constitution itself. "But Muh Inclusivity" can take a back seat. Competency should be the only factor. But after what I've seen these past four years, I would barely even faze me if they used that as their reasoning. At least it's better than "the voters should choose!" following by crunching a justice in 8 days before an election. They don't get to complain about anything ever again after pulling that one and not even acknowledging it.

[MuddyMole]

It depends if he already has specific black woman in mind.
But since he did the same thing before, when he announced that he would choose a woman as his running mate before he'd decided who it would be, it does kind of smack of posturing.
Not that it matters any more - after the GOP's antics involving Garland, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett, the SCOTUS have lost all credibility anyway.

[Pterodon]

No Trump had every constitutional right to appoint who he did. The difference is Biden has said he will do this BEFORE he was even president

[MuddyMole]

The GOP blocked Garland's appointment on the grounds that it was too close to an election (they never claimed he was unqualified), and then forced through Coney-Barrett's appointment even though it was even closer to an election and she's unqualified to do the job. I'll give Kavanaugh the benefit of the doubt (innocent until proven guilty), but the fact remains that it should have been Garland instead.

Trump, before he was president, campaigned on the promise that if he won, he'd appoint judges who would overturn Roe vs Wade etc, which is FAR worse than appointing people based on race/gender - that's appointing people based on their political bias, whereas the whole point of the courts (incl. SCOTUS) is that they should be a third branch of government, separate from the political parties and unbiased.

[DCooper]

Reliable sources told me the black woman who spends the most on Hunter's "artwork" will win the job, and Hunter will later be heard complaining about having to split the proceeds with his dad.

[Surely]

If Biden would say that he found a new SCOTUS replacement and they just happened to be a black woman. I could more easily accept that he found the most qualified person.
Instead of doing what he did for his VP and now for this upcoming opening in the Supreme Court.

[UdontNeedtoknow]

It should be whoever is best for the job and is from the judiciary. Man or woman. race shouldn't matter. Hiring based on skin color is racist and illegal. This just goes to show how racist the democrats have truly become with there cultural revolution they have put upon this country that 90% of us never wanted in the first place.

[DCooper]

It really makes no difference. One down-the-line leftist is a direct plug and play replacement for any other. Can anyone name a single example of a time when Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagen, or Ginsberg ever had an opinion that differed from one another?

[Wade12345]

More stupidity in government.

The most qualified candidate should get the job. we shouldn't be appointing judges just to meet some quota of minorities.

[Avicenna]

For leftists, "best for the job" means a reliable leftist vote. But it's also a matter of identity politics.

[Anonymous]

Identity politics brought us Kamala Harris. A complete fucking disaster. This constant virtue signaling from the democrats is not only destroying the country but it's destroying the party.

[slatyb]

There are many people who are qualified. There are plenty of white men on the court. He won’t nominate her, but Michelle Obama would be great.

[BillyBalls]

Obama is not SCOTUS material.

[slatyb]

@BillyBalls there are no explicit qualifications, although I expect Biden will nominate a sitting judge from a lower court.

[Agape93]

Doesn't matter. if she's qualified then there's no problem.

[Pterodon]

Yes there is. He’s pledged a black woman since before his presidency. So that automatically disqualifies anyone else?

[Agape93]

True. But if the woman is qualified to do the job, then who honestly gives a shit? Trump made sure all his picks were anti abortion conservatives. That was also quite restrictive but I didn't hear you complain about that.

I get it. You don't like Biden, democrats or liberals. Cool, agreed. But at least be consistent.

[libsaretards]

It matters because he is breaking a federal law. Title VII CLEARLY states that race and gender are off limits when it comes to deciding employment, which is what Biden is doing with a Supreme Court nomination.

[Agape93]

www.eeoc.gov/.../questions-and-answers-application-title-vii-and-ada-applicants-or-employees-who

[Agape93]

Also, promising to get a black lady is not even a crime. He can promise it until judgement day, it still won't won't a crime. Also title 7 covers discrimination in the hiring process, so you would have to prove that the hiring process was discriminatory. Not to mention anyone he proposed would have to be vetted and approved by congress, and depending on the time frame that may well include a republican majority in one or both houses if it is delayed too long. So, what you're proposing is if a black lady was put on the bench as promised, you'd send most of congress and Biden to prison.

[loveslongnails]

It could very well be both. There are probably several black women qualified for the job. I don't think it was wise for Biden to pledge it like that because it seems that it's already pidgeon-holed.

[AviatorTom]

It's a politically-based attempt at diversity... at its core, it's blatant racism.

[Iron_Man]

I would have to know that person to find out if they’re qualified

[ManHater]

Laugh. Giving people jobs who are unqualified for the job is so stupid.

[awkward_author]

It can be both. That's possible.

[noohair]

Typical identity politics.