Should Breyer retire?
DanDietrich said:
STANV said:
RTrent said:
But anyway, its a seems ridiculous telling someone to retire now because "we may need more time" to pick your successor. If, unlike the Republicans, Democrats are incapable of getting their act together then do they deserve to be in charge? Many independents and some Democrats will be thinking at election time why am I voting to support a party that is ineffectual.
I have no doubt that the White House has a list of potential nominees. If they get any hint of retirement they will begin (or continue) the vetting process.
I don't share this belief. I had assumed that after winning the presidency, house, and Senate in November that come January Democrats would have lists of judges ready to appoint, lists of appointees for postal commissions, etc. I assumed confirmation hearings would start right away on parallel tracks. I was wrong on every count. They started slowly and are still trying to work within a framework that the republicans ignored when they held office. I have little faith that they have a trigger ready to pull.
President Biden has appointed the most federal judges through Aug. 1 of a president’s first year
President Joe Biden (D) has appointed eight Article III federal judges through Aug. 1 of his first year in office. This is the largest number of Article III judicial appointments at this point in a president’s first term since President Richard Nixon (R).
That's great. I admit I am not expert. How many overall vacancies are there to fill?
Oh, I see. By that article there are currently 80 vacancies and 24 before the Senate. I wonder if the team had 88 candidates in mind in January?
DanDietrich said:
Oh, I see. By that article there are currently 80 vacancies and 24 before the Senate. I wonder if the team had 88 candidates in mind in January?
Vetting takes time.
Steve said:
DanDietrich said:
Oh, I see. By that article there are currently 80 vacancies and 24 before the Senate. I wonder if the team had 88 candidates in mind in January?
Vetting takes time.
Vetting should be occuring even when democrats are in the minority. The lists should be ready right off the bat. The courts are too important. The DNC can surely afford a small off ice to steadily create lists of candidates.
DanDietrich said:
Steve said:
DanDietrich said:
Oh, I see. By that article there are currently 80 vacancies and 24 before the Senate. I wonder if the team had 88 candidates in mind in January?
Vetting takes time.
Vetting should be occuring even when democrats are in the minority. The lists should be ready right off the bat. The courts are too important. The DNC can surely afford a small off ice to steadily create lists of candidates.
And you think they don't ???
Dennis_Seelbach said:
DanDietrich said:
Vetting should be occuring even when democrats are in the minority. The lists should be ready right off the bat. The courts are too important. The DNC can surely afford a small off ice to steadily create lists of candidates.
And you think they don't ???
His uncertainty seemed pretty clear to me.
DanDietrich said:
I wonder if the team had 88 candidates in mind in January?
I admit, though, that “small off ice” confused me longer than it should have.
Yes fragile and as I posted above,
Morganna
Sep 13, 2021 at 8:35amIn this case no one is saying he should retire because he is at the end of his usefulness or because he might die in a few years but that someone in the Senate who plays for our team, just might.
The FBI does a lot of the vetting. It has to be asked to do so by the White House.
Steve said:
The FBI does a lot of the vetting. It has to be asked to do so by the White House.
Why not do it in house in advance, to eliminate however many embarrassing candidates as possible. Then, the FBI has fewer to vet and if given names early they can get cranking. I'm assuming, of course, that democrats have an FBI director nominated on day one. What I am seeing in most of the responses here is exactly the old way of doing things. "That's how it's done". Don't you realize that the Republicans have thrown out the rule book? Democrats were voted in, as usual, to fix the mess. But it's not getting fixed. Republicans, as usual, are managing to slow everything down until they get power again. It is time for Democrats to change. Get the Breyers and Feinsteins out.
DanDietrich said:
Steve said:
The FBI does a lot of the vetting. It has to be asked to do so by the White House.
Why not do it in house in advance, to eliminate however many embarrassing candidates as possible. Then, the FBI has fewer to vet and if given names early they can get cranking. I'm assuming, of course, that democrats have an FBI director nominated on day one. What I am seeing in most of the responses here is exactly the old way of doing things. "That's how it's done". Don't you realize that the Republicans have thrown out the rule book? Democrats were voted in, as usual, to fix the mess. But it's not getting fixed. Republicans, as usual, are managing to slow everything down until they get power again. It is time for Democrats to change. Get the Breyers and Feinsteins out.
as was pointed out earlier, Biden has installed more judges in his first 8 months than any prez since Nixon.
What exactly is your complaint?
Christ, can't you read? He needs to exponentially increase the rate of appointments.
DanDietrich said:
Christ, can't you read? He needs to exponentially increase the rate of appointments.
oh. exponentially.
got it.
drummerboy said:
cnbc says Breyer is retiring
Must be official. Trump is already raising money on it.
Morganna said:
Good news!
If only RBG had shown similar wisdom.
Now, let us all pray for the health of Democratic Senators representing states with red governors.
I don't get why Biden says in advance he will select a Black woman Supreme Court justice, just like I didn't get why he said in advance he would select a woman VP. Cheapens the selection process from the get-go IMO -- if I'm the SC nominee, I'm now the best Black female nominee rather than the best nominee.
Say you'll pick the best person for the job, and if it's a woman or a Black woman with diversity as one of the considerations, great.
Smedley said:
I don't get why Biden says in advance he will select a Black woman Supreme Court justice, just like I didn't get why he said in advance he would select a woman VP. Cheapens the selection process from the get-go IMO -- if I'm the SC nominee, I'm now the best Black female nominee rather than the best nominee.
Say you'll pick the best person for the job, and if it's a woman or a Black woman with diversity as one of the considerations, great.
As opposed to say a theocratic conservative?
Or a conservative black man even if not really qualified?
Obviously Biden's best person for the job won't be either of those profiles.
Smedley said:
Obviously Biden's best person for the job won't be either of those profiles.
My point is that the set of qualified candidates is always whittled down based on political and diversity factors.
Smedley said:
I don't get why Biden says in advance he will select a Black woman Supreme Court justice, just like I didn't get why he said in advance he would select a woman VP. Cheapens the selection process from the get-go IMO -- if I'm the SC nominee, I'm now the best Black female nominee rather than the best nominee.
Say you'll pick the best person for the job, and if it's a woman or a Black woman with diversity as one of the considerations, great.
there is no "best person for the job". That's always been horseshit. There are literally thousands and thousands of people who can do the job of SCOTUS justice.
it cheapens nothing to announce that you're finally going to put a Black female on the court.
drummerboy said:
There are literally thousands and thousands of people who can do the job of SCOTUS justice.
And, sometimes, conservatives even draw from outside that pool.
DaveSchmidt said:
tjohn said:
Smedley said:
Obviously Biden's best person for the job won't be either of those profiles.
My point is that the set of qualified candidates is always whittled down based on political and diversity factors.
I’m inferring that Smedley has a narrower view of qualities.
I'm inferring that Smedley lives in the fantasy land of meritocracy.
DaveSchmidt said:
tjohn said:
Smedley said:
Obviously Biden's best person for the job won't be either of those profiles.
My point is that the set of qualified candidates is always whittled down based on political and diversity factors.
I’m inferring that Smedley has a narrower view of qualities.
What do you think -- what are the pros/cons of Biden pre-selecting a gender/race profile for the next SC justice?
Smedley said:
What do you think -- what are the pros/cons of Biden pre-selecting a gender/race profile for the next SC justice?
Any black woman who's made it to a Federal bench is likely twice as qualified as any white man, or they never would be there.
Smedley said:
DaveSchmidt said:
tjohn said:
Smedley said:
Obviously Biden's best person for the job won't be either of those profiles.
My point is that the set of qualified candidates is always whittled down based on political and diversity factors.
I’m inferring that Smedley has a narrower view of qualities.
What do you think -- what are the pros/cons of Biden pre-selecting a gender/race profile for the next SC justice?
Unlike the white male restriction in place during the first 200 years of our nation?
Smedley said:
What do you think -- what are the pros/cons of Biden pre-selecting a gender/race profile for the next SC justice?
Pro#1: I won the election
Pro#2: It's a chance to survive the midterms
Pro#3: It helps with the re-elect in 2024
Pro#4: It's a good thing to do.
For Sale
-
leather couches $300
More info
Garage Sales
-
Multi Family Garage Sale Sale Date: Apr 20, 2024
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
I don't share this belief. I had assumed that after winning the presidency, house, and Senate in November that come January Democrats would have lists of judges ready to appoint, lists of appointees for postal commissions, etc. I assumed confirmation hearings would start right away on parallel tracks. I was wrong on every count. They started slowly and are still trying to work within a framework that the republicans ignored when they held office. I have little faith that they have a trigger ready to pull.