A new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds that a plurality of Americans view the Supreme Court as motivated by partisanship, while President Joe Biden's campaign trail vow to select a Black woman to fill a high-court vacancy without reviewing all potential candidates evokes a sharply negative reaction from voters.
During the spring 2020 presidential primaries, days before his set of big wins on Super Tuesday, Biden pledged to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court, if elected. Now, with the chance to do so, just over three-quarters of Americans (76%) want Biden to consider "all possible nominees." Just 23% want him to automatically follow through on his history-making commitment that the White House seems keen on seeing through. At a ceremony honoring the retiring justice, Biden told reporters he is able to honor his promise without compromising on quality.
Although the poll's sample size was not large enough to break out results for Black people, only a little more than 1 in 4 nonwhite Americans (28%) wish for Biden to consider only Black women for the vacancy. Democrats are more supportive of Biden's vow (46%) than Americans as a whole, but still a majority of Democrats (54%) also prefer that Biden consider all possible nominees.
The most amusing part of all of this are the tone-deaf (generally lily white liberals) who actually believed that the country was going to rally around a decision by the President to eliminate 93% of the applicant because they have the wrong sexual organs and/or skin color. The decision didn't even garner a positive take within the Democratic Party itself.
How many "this is going to help Democrats in the midterms" stories were their out there in the past few days here? Enough to make a lot of people look awful stupid!
This was a boneheaded campaign promise and an even bigger boneheaded decision to follow through with it. Rather than really stick it to Republicans (who are supposedly going to look racist for opposing his nomination) it appears that Biden has stuck it to himself and his own Party has people see through the pretense and at a fundamental level know that it is bad in 2022 to be picking something this important over gender and race.
Knowing this, Republicans will have a clear path to attacking the nominee on basis of experience or qualifications with only the few lily white liberals and black race baiters still screaming in a circle jerk about bigotry. As pointed out, the candidates on the list for Biden seem underwhelming as it goes to experience and qualifications. When three quarters of Americans are against Biden limiting this pick by sex and race, it will resonate with those people if the Candidate seems like a stretch pick or seems less qualified than other possible names.
More bad news (really bad news) for Biden and his flailing Party.
60 comments:
GRAHAM VERY STRONGLY BACKS BIDEN'S DECISION TO NOMINATE A BLACK WOMAN FOR SUPREME COURT JUSTICE
January 30, 2022 at 12:15 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 68 Comments
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) broke with several of his Republican colleagues by seemingly expressing support for President Joe Biden’s pledge to nominate the first-ever Black woman to the Supreme Court, Politico reports.
Said Graham: “Put me in the camp of making sure the court and other institutions look like America. You know, we make a real effort as Republicans to recruit women and people of color to make the party look more like America.”
Graham also appeared to endorse Michelle Childs, a U.S. District Court judge in his home state of South Carolina, for the seat held by the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer.
The Democrats have to avoid defunding the police, and focus successful programming had to include services for the city's substantial unhoused community, jobs for unemployed young people, and mental health response teams, among other things.
Building proposals around addressing these concerns and created solid messaging in their campaign around it.
Over the past few days, they seem to have adopted this strategy. And of course, infrastructure!
He is not a racist rodent bastard like you have become since he was nominated
The pardon you support
Lindsey Graham slams Trump's 'pardon' offer for Jan. 6: He's inciting others 'to go down the violent path'
David Edwards
January 30, 2022
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) expressed disagreement with Donald Trump after the former president said he might pardon Jan. 6 defendants if he wins a second term in 2024.
During a Sunday interview on CBS, host Margaret Brennan asked Graham about the remarks Trump made the night before at a Texas rally.
"Pardons? Do you agree?" Brennan wondered.
"No," Graham stated. "I don't want to send any signal that it was OK to defile the Capitol. There are other groups with causes that may want to go down the violent path if these people get pardoned."
"Isn't that a dangerous thing to say?" Brennan pressed.
"Yeah," Graham agreed. "I think it's inappropriate. I don't want to reinforce the defiling of the Capitol was OK. I don't want to do anything that would make this more likely in the future."
Before finishing, the South Carolina Republican compared Trump's remarks to Vice President Kamala Harris promoting bail for people who participated in protests and riots over the George Floyd killing in 2020.
"I didn't like that either," he said. "So I don't want to do anything from raising bail to pardoning people who take the law into their own hands because it will make violence more likely. I want to deter people who did what they did on Jan. 6. And those who did it, I hope they go to jail and get the book thrown at them because they deserve it."
Scott, seriously. It is properly written but it is irrational feelings not objectively or even rational.
You draw irrational parallel comparisons.
*How many "this is going to help Democrats in the midterms" stories were their out there in the past few days here? Enough to make a lot of people look awful stupid! ****
This was a boneheaded campaign promise and an even bigger boneheaded decision to follow through with it.******
It's purely partisan instead of being objective about others feeling.
Analizsation is very difficult because you have to separate from your feelings and again be objective
How many "this is going to help Democrats in the midterms" stories were their out there in the past few days here?
He knew that picking something this important over gender and race and getting criticized by Democrats and Republicans was more important than politics.
Very few politicians have done that in history. Even LBJ did the same thing during the civil rights era.
Roger....
Do you believe (yes or no) that a decision that is opposed by 76% of Americans is going to help Biden and the Democrats in the midterms?
Are you aware (yes or no) of how many liberals have called this a great political move that will help motivate voters to vote Democrat in the upcoming midterms?
I believe that a decision that is opposed by 76% of Americans will not help Biden and Democrats, and therefore it is absolutely logical to say that those who have suggested differently look awful stupid right now.
It's not the logic you dislike, Roger.
It's where the logic takes us that bugs you!
You, Reverend and the other lily white liberals were wrong to suggest that Biden limiting his pick to a black women was not only a great political decision, but that it was actually some sort of gamechanger for the midterms.
Nearly all politicians are out of touch (both Dems and Reps) and they all suffer from living in that Washington political elite bubble. Some Republicans will not make it out of that bubble while others will. I promise you that those Republicans who are beholden to the bubble (Graham, Romney, etc) will probably not get it, while those willing to listen to their constituents and Americans in general (Trump, DeSantis, Cruz, etc) will.
He knew that picking something this important over gender and race and getting criticized by Democrats and Republicans was more important than politics.
So he wanted to get criticized and felt that criticism was more important than politics? Now that is a very odd statement. Good thing you are not a political advisor.
And he is not making a pick "over" gender or race, he is using gender and race to limit his selection process. The former makes it seem like he is basing on qualifications "over race" - whereas the truth is that he is admittedly picking gender and race "over qualifications".
I often disagree with Lindsay Graham, but he is right about this: It is long past time for us to consider a capable candidate for the Supreme Court who is both black and female.
Graham occasionally says and does the right thing, as did the friend he so much admired, John McCain.
---McCain stood tall the day he cast the vote that prevented Trump from topedoing the Affordable Care Act.
Bidenomics Build Back Broker policies have failed Americans.
And they don't like shortages and unchecked inflation.
I often disagree with Lindsay Graham, but he is right about this: It is long past time for us to consider a capable candidate for the Supreme Court who is both black and female.
Well Reverend, you are a lily white liberal who always thinks his wokeness makes him right. Even when it is something dumb like the idea that my neighbor who is a black women is more likely than Merrick Garland to be nominated to the USSC because her gender and color is more important than her qualifications.
Are you saying that the 72% of Minorities from this poll who disagree with you and think Biden should consider everyone... are racist or just stupid and wrong?
I'll just let Dick Durbin remind you of a couple of things, Ch:
After a new poll showed Americans are more interested in getting the most qualified person for the job, Dick Durbin said:.
'Recall that
first, it was Ronald Reagan who announced that he was going to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court, and he did, Sandra Day O’Connor.
And second, it was Donald Trump who announced that he was going to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a woman nominee as well.
'So,' Durbin said, 'this is not the first time that a president has signaled what they're looking for in a nominee.'
________
But you seem to be saying, Ch, that Reagan and Trump were both terribly wrong not to consider EVERYONE EQUALLY, BOTH MEN AND WOMEN, and should not have limited their considerations only to the female gender.
Respond to that, please, without dancing all around it.
Or is it the word black that skewers your sense of what is right?
There it is again. A democrat bringing race into it again.
Ch brought race into it first.
But shut up and let Ch answer.
Just once I'd like to discuss bid4n with a democrat without him or her changing the subject to Trump.
I mentioned both Trump AND Reagan.
Shut up.
You're curt anger is not helping you in this absurd argument of yours. When you're in a hole, stop digging.
James having a tantrum. How pathetic.
LOL I am only laughing at you.
PM
Blogger Honest, decent, truth telling Reverend said...
Ch brought race into it first.
But shut up and let Ch answer
The way you rudely treat people I would tell you to fuck off if I was CH.
Well Reverend - it's a moot argument because Reagan did consider male candidates when he eventually nominated Sandra Day O'Connor. He also said that one of his first nominations would be a woman. He didn't demand that only a woman would be considered.
More to the point, 52% of Americans are women, there were lots of women in high places in the law, and having never had a US Court Justice from the actual majority gender in America is a whole lot different than narrowing your search by 93%.
In other words Reagan could make a pledge to make "one of his nominees" a women because doing so was not going to be that limiting, especially if he was going to eventually nominate both men and women (which he did). It might have actually been odd if he had said that he might have three or four chances and none would necessarily be a woman. Making gender "part" of his thinking was perfectly reasonable.
This is not dancing, Reverend. But rather explaining the actual facts.
But to answer your hypothetical it never actually happened in real life question. I believe that if Ronald Reagan had pledged to "only" consider a women for one of his positions that he would have gotten some push back from people who believe that he should have considered everyone. Just as Biden is doing. I think anything like that is unfair to people who are basically shut out... looking at it from those who are given no chance due to the absolute nature of a pledge like this.
Ha. Noy sure why. You're the one embarrassing yourself again.
You're not as smart as you think you are.
Ch brought race into it first.
Ha! Pretty sure that was Biden.
But hey, your ability to twist things illogically is epic!
Like I said, James is embarrassing himself here. I'm damn glad he's not my pastor.
Now Reverend...
Be a fair minded person and return the favor by answering my question?
Are the 72% of minorities who disagree with you about this racist or just dumb and wrong?
Thanks for the dance, Ch.
Reagan promised what he promised.
Durbin is right.
Lindsay is right.
Biden is right.
I am right.
James is holding his hands over his ears shouting la la la la....
Honest, decent, truth telling Reverend said...
Or is it the word black that skewers your sense of what is right?
It's skewing you sense of right and wrong.
You are so sanctimonious about race relations you haven't the slightest the clue that with your attitude of condensing you insult the very people you say you champion.
*Condescension (auto-correct).
So the Reverend refuses to accept the answer because apparently he is misinformed about what Reagan pledged and doesn't like being corrected.
Then he runs off in his dishonest manner to avoid explaining why 72% of Minorities and 76% of Americans disagree with him?
Typical Reverend. A dishonest coward who demands that as a lily white woke liberal is is never wrong! Even when facts and polling prove he is not just a little wrong, but extremely horribly wrong!
Keep your pants on, Ch. My answer is on its way.
(Knee slapping funny.) LOL
Conservatives have attacked Biden for sticking by his promise to name a Black woman to the Supreme Court.
But President Reagan did virtually the same thing Biden is now doing.
The history of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's nomination is worth a closer examination.
Some conservatives are upset. Legal commentators and pundits are aghast that President Joe Biden would stand by his commitment to naming a Black woman to the Supreme Court.
A few also point out that Biden made his promise in the heat of the presidential campaign. Based on multiple reports, it's likely Biden's hastily made vow during a Democratic primary debate wrapped up the endorsement that helped springboard him to the White House.
There's just one problem. If Biden is being "woke," misguided, or corrupting the supposedly pure process of selecting Supreme Court nominees, then he's not alone. President Ronald Reagan went by the same playbook.
Reagan's own words, news accounts, and the private memos his aides authored at the time make abundantly clear that both the conception and later commitment to the historic vow to name the first-ever woman to the Supreme Court was about more than just high-minded idealism.
One top Reagan advisor told the president that delivering on his pledge to nominate a woman to the highest court "would be a good political move."
"It will strengthen our base among women and probably among men also," the aide wrote.
This was about politics, too. And the parallels don't end there.
Renee Knake Jefferson, who co-wrote a book about women considered for Supreme Court nominations, said Reagan also considered naming a Black woman. In fact, US Circuit Court Judge Amalya L. Kearse was on the shortlist for seats that ended up going to Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Stephen Breyer. Breyer's retirement, of course, is opening the seat for Biden.
"This is a long time coming and to the extent that anyone is suggesting that any of the Black women who would be selected wouldn't be chosen but for the fact Biden made this campaign pledge that rings very hollow to me," said Jefferson, who is also a law professor at the University of Houston and co-author of "Shortlisted: Women in the Shadows of the Supreme Court." "Black women have been eminently qualified for a lifetime."
That was not my answer. My answer is still coming.
Sorry Reverend...
Still waiting?
Why do 72% of minorities and 76% of Americans disagree with you?
By defending your indefensible view are you suggesting that they are racist? Are you suggesting that they are just not as smart as you? Are you suggesting that they need to be more "woke" like you?
It's not that hard?
Nobody wants you to defend your position. It's wrong, just like the idea that it would be a political winner. This poll proves both to be wrong.
My question is why do you believe that you are such a small minority (even a minority in your own Party)? Is the majority Racist or stupid?
Please answer
Don't dance!
tick tock...
Ch said to me,
"Be a fair minded person and return the favor by answering my question:
Are the 72% of minorities who disagree with you about this racist or just dumb and wrong?"
______
Well, Ch, I don't know whether 72% of Americans did not think Reagan should nominate a woman rather than whatever person, man or woman, was most qualified for the position, nor do I know how many may, or may not, have been opposed to H. W. Bush's nomination of Clarence Thomas to that position as a black man,
but I do remember reading this:
A year after the hearing [on Anita Hill's sexual harrassment charges against Thomas,] a Wall Street Journal poll ... found that national opinion had flipped in favor of Hill (44 percent) to Thomas (34 percent).
I'm also aware that up until now Thomas is considered to have been one of the weakest Justices ever to have occupied a bench on the Court.
So I guess we shall wait to see who Biden nominates and evaluate her qualifications for the position, or lack of them.
Seems fair.
Shocking that Lil Schitty is cogent enough to recognize the SCOTUS is.a partisan institution........BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! I guess Mitch and his making rules up and then changing them to get picks was reasonable!!!!!!!! LOLOLOLOL. I guess that young brilliant model store bought wife is affecting his ability to reason!!!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA
So... Reverend.
Still waiting for your answer.
This has absolutely nothing to do with Reagan and 100% to do with Biden.
72% of minorities and 76% of Americans disagree with your opinion.
Do you believe it is because they are stupid? Are they racist? Are they not properly "woke"?
Or is it possible that they are making a reasonable logical thinking person's observation that eliminating almost all of your possible nominations and only allowing the consideration of a very narrow cross section of the population...
Based entirely on gender and race discrimination. Because by definition it is discrimination....
Is wrong?
Is it possible that this is actually the correct logical observation and you and your ilk are the ones with the opinion that cannot be logically defended?
C'mon Reverend...
Are you not the one who doesn't like "dancing"?
But instead of answering a simple question.... you have now brought up Reagan multiple times (one, two three, twirl), O'Connor (four, five six leap), now Clarence Thomas for some reason (dance, dance, dance), and then polling on Anita Hill as if that has anything to do with anything... ending with a couple of pirouettes and a bow.
Can you stop your dancing long enough to answer?
By definition.......your poll is a sample of 511 people.....hardly what I would consider valid for much......sorry sport, but it is an opinion poll and therefor just that.....BTW....your opinion and James are just as valid.....The only thing woke is your ignorance and desperation to be correct!!!!!! BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! BTW.....I hope he picks a. black women as he promised.....and that is the heart of the debate, keeping his word and the fact keeping his promise may reverse the support leaking from the people who elected him!!!!!!!
I'm also aware that up until now Thomas is considered to have been one of the weakest Justices ever to have occupied a bench on the Court
What an uneducated racist piece of shit you are, child molester
The Five Worst Supreme Court Justices In American History, Ranked
IAN MILLHISER
Even amidst this dark history, certain justices stand out as particularly mean-spirited, ideological or unconcerned about their duty to follow the text of the Constitution. Based on my review of over 150 years of Supreme Court history in Injustices, here are the five jurists who stand out as the worst justices in American history:
1) Justice Stephen Johnson Field
2) Chief Justice Roger Taney
3) Justice James Clark McReynolds
4) Chief Justice Melville Fuller
5) Justice Clarence Thomas
Justice Clarence Thomas is the only current member of the Supreme Court who has explicitly embraced the reasoning of Lochner Era decisions striking down nationwide child labor laws and making similar attacks on federal power.
Indeed, under the logic Thomas first laid out in a concurring opinion in United States v. Lopez, the federal minimum wage, overtime rules, anti-discrimination protections for workers, and even the national ban on whites-only lunch counters are all unconstitutional.
Though Thomas’s views are rare today, they have, sadly, not been the least bit uncommon during the Supreme Court’s history. He makes this list because, frankly, he should know better than his predecessors. As I explain in Injustices, many of the justices who resisted progressive legislation in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were, like Field, motivated by ideology. Many others, however, were motivated by fear of the rapid changes state and federal lawmakers implemented in the wake of the even more rapid changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution. It was possible to believe, in a world where factories, railroads, and the laws required to regulate factories and railroads were all very new things, that these laws would, as Herbert Hoover once said about the New Deal, “destroy the very foundations of our American system” by extending “government into our economic and social life.”
But Thomas has the benefit of eighty years of American history that Hoover had not witnessed when he warned of an overreaching government. In that time, the Supreme Court largely abandoned the values embraced by Justice Field, and the United States became the mightiest nation in the history of politics and the wealthiest nation in the history of money.
ThinkProgress, center for American Progress
Those are some deep chops there
As I said all you post, is propaganda that no one fucking reads, because you are so intellectually devoid of an intelligent thought
My god, your wife must love it when you come spew your stupid shit here, she gets a respite
I'm also aware that up until now Thomas is considered to have been one of the weakest Justices
Truer words have never been posted, shorty!!!!!
He knew that picking a qualified nominee, based upon gender and race, as he pledged to do during the campaign, would be criticized by Democrats and Republicans.
Very few politicians have done that in history. Even LBJ did the same thing during the civil rights era.
When it happens soon, he will get credit amongst his base, and women voters will vote for Democrats. Especially if the Democrats, get the same support they did in the last election cycle
Tie game @
And in waddles community college
LOL
Where is your answer Reverend?
You actually claimed you had one?
We all know that you do not!
What is wrong with the massive majorities of minorities and Americans who disagree with you? Racists? Stupid? Not woke enough? Tell us Reverend?
Cue another shut up tantrum from James.
What a great game! The Cincinnati Bengals. They are going to The Super Bowl!����������������
He knew that picking a qualified nominee, based upon gender and race, as he pledged to do during the campaign, would be criticized by Democrats and Republicans.
Very few politicians have done that in history. Even LBJ did the same thing during the civil rights era.
When it happens soon, he will get credit amongst his base, and women voters will vote for Democrats. Especially if the Democrats, get the same support they did in the last election cycle. He is not a racist!
Woke in just another talking point like CRT
You are one of them who believe whatever Trump tells you to think.
When it happens soon, he will get credit amongst his base, and women voters will vote for Democrats. Especially if the Democrats, get the same support they did in the last election cycle. He is not a racist!
So Roger..
If that move is so popular with the voters, why do only 46% of Democrats approve of it? There is very very little support with Independents for this and almost zero support from Republicans.
You keep sticking to the prejudgement YOU MADE that this would be a hugely popular political move because everyone wants to limit the next USSC Justice to only 6% of the population in whole and probably less than that in the judicial community.
Anyone who is black a woman and sitting on a bench somewhere (Federal or otherwise) is probably on the list.
Bonus Quote of the Day
January 30, 2022 at 7:00 pm EST By Taegan Goddard 47 Comments
“I think it is inappropriate. I don’t want to reinforce that defiling the capitol is okay.”
— Sen. Lindsey Graham, quoted by CBS News, responding to former President Trump dangling the possibility of pardons for Capitol rioters.
You are getting more irrational every day Scott
Another Republican says the same thing as James and me. You are full of shit.
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday pushed back against the notion that President Biden's vow to nominate a Black woman the Supreme Court was akin to "affirmative action," saying he was in support of making U.S. institutions "look like America."
"Put me in the camp of making sure the court and other institutions look like America. You know, we make a real effort as Republicans to recruit women and people of color to make the party look more like America. Affirmative action is picking somebody not as well qualified for past wrongs," Graham said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Graham's remarks come after Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker said in an interview last week that any Black female candidate Biden nominates to the court to replace the retiring Justice Stephen Breyer would be a "beneficiary" of affirmative action.
During his interview on Sunday, Graham gave a glowing endorsement of J. Michelle Childs, a federal district judge in South Carolina, to be considered for the Supreme Court, saying he couldn't think of a better person for Biden to consider. The White House has confirmed that Childs is under consideration.
"Michelle Charles is incredibly qualified. There's no affirmative action component if you pick her. She is highly qualified," Graham said.
"In the history of our country, we've only had five women serve and two African American men," he added. "So let's make the court more like America, but qualifications have to be the biggest consideration."
Why are you trying to restrict blacks from voting AND from being on the Supreme Court, Ch?
Well, Ch, you must be argueing that Reagan should never have announced that he was going to nominate a woman, thereby cutting out all the immensely qualified men, white or black, even from being considered.
And it was wrong for H.W. Bush to announce the nomination of a black man, thereby cutting out all the immensely qualified white men, and ALL women, black or white, even from being considered.
And one thing is certainly sure:
Thomas was one of the most UNDERqualified nominees for the Supreme Court EVAH nominated.
Well, Ch, you must be argueing that Reagan should never have announced that he was going to nominate a woman, thereby cutting out all the immensely qualified men, white or black, even from being considered.
I did, Reverend.
Post a Comment