SC Justice Breyer to Retire

[Anti Globalist]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/sta...87255979696132 https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/sta...91701098962946

How funny it would be if Manchin and Sinema don't vote for Biden's SCOTUS pick, and the seat basically says open until the next election cycle.

[Occam's Banana]

How funny it would be if Manchin and Sinema don't vote for Biden's SCOTUS pick, and the seat basically says open until the next election cycle.

I'm sure Romney et al. will be glad to take up the slack.

[oyarde]

Wow. I mean, I know they're all about someone's identity compared to their qualifications, but I'm still surprised by how brazen they are in admitting it.

What could be more racist?? There used to be a time when the left would be adamantly opposed to a selection based on the color of someone's skin. In fact...

Ya well the bad news is in , content of character went out in the 1960's

[69360]

Biden puts Harris on scotus and picks Clinton as VP then resigns, Buttigeig then becomes VP. Every flavor of democrat is satisfied.

[Matt4Liberty]

If they're picking a black woman, doesn't that automatically disqualify Harris who's at most 1/16 black?

[Anti Federalist]

How is announcing you will only consider a black woman not racist and sexist? Democrats now live in an alternate reality.

I was curious about that myself.

When did it become legal to openly use race as a hiring qualification/disqualification in a federal job?

[Anti Federalist]

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/stat...00186364698628

[Anti Federalist]

The next SC nominee needs to be carefully vetted to make sure that he or she has the right qualifications and experience.

In particular, I really think they should be looking for someone that has experience as a professional clown.

Considering how much clowning the SC does, it doesn't really make sense that none of the current justices have any actual professional experience as a clown.

[Swordsmyth]

How Republicans Can Block Stephen Breyer’s Replacement
https://time.com/6142711/joe-biden-s...tephen-breyer/

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Stacy Abrahams identifies as a black woman.

[Sonny Tufts]

How Republicans Can Block Stephen Breyer’s Replacement
https://time.com/6142711/joe-biden-s...tephen-breyer/

Better read the article again.

[Anti Globalist]

If they're picking a black woman, doesn't that automatically disqualify Harris who's at most 1/16 black?

Hush. Harris doesn't want people to know she's more indian than she is black.

[Snowball]

Hush. Harris doesn't want people to know she's more indian than she is black.

Funny, over here, the indians are more black than indian.

which is why they were always called Monigs.

it is a special case, where the indigenous tribe was wiped out. later, the few survivors mated with coloreds,
resulting in the Monig tribe.

[acptulsa]

Funny, over here, the indians are more black than indian.

which is why they were always called Monigs.

it is a special case, where the indigenous tribe was wiped out. later, the few survivors mated with coloreds,
resulting in the Monig tribe.

Thank you so much for that uplifting tale. The woman's roots are in India, Einstein.

[A Son of Liberty]

"The coloreds" LMAO

I got news for ya Snowball, you're colored, too!

[Occam's Banana]

I got news for ya Snowball, you're colored, too!

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1486756549372567561

[A Son of Liberty]

https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1486756549372567561

[Swordsmyth]

Better read the article again.

You better.

[Sonny Tufts]

You better.

I did, but you need to. The article was revised because the author didn't realize that only a majority vote is needed to confirm a SCOTUS nominee. I guess you missed this part:

"If all Democrats hang together–which I expect they will—they have the power to replace Justice Breyer in 2022 without one Republican vote in support,” said Senate Republican Lindsey Graham, a member of the Judiciary Committee, in a tweet Wednesday.

The Senate is split 50-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris breaking the tie. A 2013 agreement allows most presidential nominees to be confirmed with simple majority votes rather than a 60-vote, filibuster-proof margin. A 2017 update added Supreme Court nominees at that threshold. Under a power-sharing agreement reached a year ago between Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, that bare-majority threshold still holds for Supreme Court nominees, according to a May 2021 report by the Congressional Research Service, Congress’ nonpartisan research institute.

[Swordsmyth]

I did, but you need to. The article was revised because the author didn't realize that only a majority vote is needed to confirm a SCOTUS nominee. I guess you missed this part:

Somebody sent them a memo to stop giving McConnell ideas.
The edit does nothing to change the original article, it just lies about it.

The simple majority only applies if the nominee gets through the committee which the nominee will not if the Republicans on the committee unite against him because the committee is split half and half.
The Demoncrats can then try to bring the nominee directly to the floor but that route still requires a 60 vote threshold.

[Sonny Tufts]

Somebody sent them a memo to stop giving McConnell ideas.
The edit does nothing to change the original article, it just lies about it.

The simple majority only applies if the nominee gets through the committee which the nominee will not if the Republicans on the committee unite against him because the committee is split half and half.
The Demoncrats can then try to bring the nominee directly to the floor but that route still requires a 60 vote threshold.

The point is that none of this was in the linked article. You apparently thought the link would refer to the original article, but it didn't.

I'm not familiar with the Senate Judiciary Committe rules on reporting its recommendations on SCOTUS nominees, but you seem to assume that all GOP committee members could band together to prevent any report. Given that this possibility hasn't been reported by the media (even the right-wing media), it's likely not going to happen. In addition, see the following:

If a majority of its members oppose confirmation, the committee technically may decide not to report a nomination, which would prevent the full Senate from considering it. However, since its creation in 1816, the Judiciary Committee’s typical practice has been to report even those Supreme Court nominations that were opposed by a committee majority,78 thus allowing the full Senate to make the final decision on whether the nominee should be confirmed. 79

This committee tradition was reaffirmed in June 2001 by the committee’s then-chair, Senator Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), and its then-ranking Member, Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), in a June 29, 2001, letter to Senate colleagues. The committee’s “traditional practice,” their letter stated, has been to report Supreme Court nominees to the Senate once the Committee has completed its considerations. This has been true even in cases where Supreme Court nominees were opposed by a majority of the Judiciary Committee. We both recognize and have every intention of following the practices and precedents of the committee and the Senate when considering Supreme Court nominees.80

78 According to CRS data, since its creation in 1816, the Judiciary Committee has reported 109 Supreme Court nominations to the full Senate (while not reporting 8 nominations). Of the 109, seven were reported unfavorably (indicating substantial committee opposition)—those of John Crittenden (1829), Ebenezer R. Hoard (1869), Stanley Matthews (1881), Lucius Q.C. Lamar (1888), William B. Hornblower (1894), John J. Parker (1930), and Robert H. Bork (1987). Two nominations were reported without recommendation—those of Wheeler H. Peckham (1894) and Clarence Thomas (1991).

79 Of the seven nominations reported unfavorably, two were approved by the Senate (Stanley Matthews and Lucius Q.C. Lamar). Of the two nominations reported without recommendation, one was approved by the Senate (Clarence Thomas).

80 Sen. Patrick J. Leahy and Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, “Dear Colleague” Letter, June 29, 2001, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 147, June 29, 2001, p. S7282.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44236

Moreover, if a simple majority of the Senate can invoke the “nuclear option” to change the filibuster rule on SCOTUS nominees (as McConnell did in 2017), why couldn’t the Dems change the rule about bringing a nomination to the floor in the absence of a committee report (assuming there is such a rule requiring 60 votes)?

[Swordsmyth]

The point is that none of this was in the linked article. You apparently thought the link would refer to the original article, but it didn't.

I'm not familiar with the Senate Judiciary Committe rules on reporting its recommendations on SCOTUS nominees, but you seem to assume that all GOP committee members could band together to prevent any report. Given that this possibility hasn't been reported by the media (even the right-wing media), it's likely not going to happen. In addition, see the following:



Moreover, if a simple majority of the Senate can invoke the “nuclear option” to change the filibuster rule on SCOTUS nominees (as McConnell did in 2017), why couldn’t the Dems change the rule about bringing a nomination to the floor in the absence of a committee report (assuming there is such a rule requiring 60 votes)?

Read it and weep:

With the Senate split 50-50, the provision of Rule 26 that saved Lindsey Graham in 2020 could now doom a similar Democratic effort in 2022.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/28...cotus-nominee/

[Anti Globalist]

Heard some people suggest Loretta Lynch could be Biden's SCOTUS pick as a callback to when Bill Clinton met with her on the tarmac. Hillary may have promised her a SCTOUS seat and this would be fulfilling that promise.

[Occam's Banana]

White House confirms Judge J. Michelle Childs under consideration for Supreme Court
https://thehill.com/regulation/admin...ral-candidates
Carlone Vakil (28 January 2022)

The White House confirmed to The Washington Post on Friday that J. Michelle Childs, a federal district judge in South Carolina, is one of several candidates whom the president is considering to be his nominee to the Supreme Court.

The South Carolina judge is “among multiple individuals under consideration for the Supreme Court,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates told the newspaper.

However, he also pushed back at news reports that suggested the president was only considering three potential picks, which have often mentioned Childs, Ketanji Brown Jackson from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and California Supreme Court Judge Leondra Kruger.

“And we are not going to move her nomination on the Court of Appeals while the President is considering her for this vacancy,” Bates told The Post, referring to her nomination last month by Biden to serve on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. “At the same time, reporting indicating that the President is only seriously considering three potential nominees is incorrect.”

The newspaper noted it is the first time that a name of a possible contender for the Supreme Court nomination has been confirmed by the White House. The development comes as Justice Stephen Breyer announced this week he would be stepping down following the high court’s current term.

Biden reiterated his plan to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court during remarks on Thursday.

“I’ve made no decision except one: The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character experience and integrity,” the president said. “And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. It’s long overdue in my view. I made that commitment during my campaign for president, and I will keep that commitment.”

Childs has received support from House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.), and he told CNN in an interview on Wednesday that he believed “several Republicans,” including Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.), would support her if she were chosen.

The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment.

[Occam's Banana]

How funny it would be if Manchin and Sinema don't vote for Biden's SCOTUS pick, and the seat basically says open until the next election cycle.

I'm sure Romney et al. will be glad to take up the slack.

[...] House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) [...] told CNN in an interview on Wednesday that he believed “several Republicans,” including Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.), would support [Childs] if she were chosen.

https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/s...68551910330374

[Sonny Tufts]

Read it and weep:

With the Senate split 50-50, the provision of Rule 26 that saved Lindsey Graham in 2020 could now doom a similar Democratic effort in 2022.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/01/28...cotus-nominee/

This, from the article, which addresses the final point in my post:

Democrats, of course, always have the option to use the nuclear option to ignore this rule. The nuclear option gets its name because it is a procedure by which a simple majority of senators ignore their own rules – and in fact, creates a precedent that forces the Senate to violate them over and over again. Presumably, this would be viewed with suspicion by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., and Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., who recently opposed using the nuclear option on Democrat-led legislation to federalize the election system.

It's one thing to try to use the nuclear option to block legislation like the proposed voting rights act. It's quite another to use it to allow a vote on a SCOTUS nominee, especially one whose confirmation would presumably have no effect on the ideological balance of the Court. Manchin or Sinema might not be so reluctant to use it in the latter case. In addition, someone like Susan Collins could break ranks with the GOP senators and allow the nomination to go to a vote. Heck, even Lindsey Graham might, based on his statements yesterday. But one needs to take anything he says with a huge block of salt, since he's prone to doing about-faces from his previous comments.

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/sta...91373827883008