Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	SCOTUS opening
Date:	1/27/2022 11:19:17 AM

In my view if Breyer is retiring the seat is Biden's to fill and the rules that applied for ACB.  If they can get it done before the midterms so be it.  It's their seat to fill and frankly given how reliably left wing Breyer has been whoever is next will be no worse.  Hopefully not as prone to disinformation as Sotomayor but that's asking a lot.  So we will get a SCOTUS nominee based on gender and race......cause that worked so well with VPOTUS.  And speaking of VPOTUS, no, she will not be the nominee.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	SCOTUS opening
Date:	1/27/2022 12:10:12 PM

Would it not be funny if Biden sends someone up for vote who can not get even the 50 demonrats on the same page and it goes past the midterms?

He has screwed up everything else so there is hope!!!!!!!

Name:	lucky67 -	Reply
Subject:	SCOTUS opening
Date:	1/27/2022 1:06:53 PM (updated 1/27/2022 1:07:48 PM)

quid pro quo with Clyburn-wonder what else it cost to get the endorsement

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	SCOTUS opening
Date:	1/27/2022 3:04:01 PM

Would love to see him nominate someone so controversial that a couple of Dems would object, but fat chance.  Then again I did not think the two would hold firm like they have

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	SCOTUS opening
Date:	1/27/2022 5:32:44 PM

Democrats are all about equality - just ask them - so can anyone tell me how it is not discriminatory to state that you will fill the post with a black woman?  Remember the outrage when Trump nominated Amy what's her name?  She is a white woman, so now we have to have a black woman... gee and we already had our token in Justice Thomas.  Only 13% of the country is black.  

I know this is a payback for black votes.  But I think it is just another indication of what is killing out country.  Now all selections are done by race, or gender. or politcal position, and no one cares about finding the best qualified.  Remember those days?  What is going on now is going to put another nail in the coffin of our country.  

Name:	lucky67 -	Reply
Subject:	SCOTUS opening
Date:	1/27/2022 5:42:24 PM

180 degrees from what MLK envisioned don't you think ???

Name:	Carlson -	Reply
Subject:	SCOTUS opening
Date:	1/27/2022 5:59:13 PM

? Digging deeper w/Max -Now, it is starting to look like Dems may *not* be able to fill the vacancy. Here's why: -McConnell and Chucky Cheese agreed to a power-sharing plan in February that splits committee membership in half. ~The powerful Senate Judiciary Committee has 11 Dems and 11 Repubs (most of whom are hardline Cons, like Cruz and Hawley). ~Under the agreement, which Harris does not play *any* role, if there is a tie in the motion to advance the nominee out of Commitee, the nomination is rendered "inert". Meaning it's tabled. ~What that means under Senate rules is Schumer can still bring the nomination to the floor for a vote, and override the commitee. ~However, however, however...because the nominee was not advanced by a majority of the commitee it faces a filibuster and he has to invoke cloture. -If you've studied civics with me, you'll know that you need *60* votes to invoke cloture, otherwise you face a Republican filibuster. -In short, unless Graham, Hawley, Cruz, or some other Republican on the committee, breaks ranks, Biden's Nominee will need TEN Republicans and *all* Dems to be confirmed. Not gonna happen. ~This is starting to look like an impossibility, given the stakes for the upcoming Midterms. ~Republicans are not going to break ranks, no way. They didn't for BBB or the Filibuster, they won't to confirm someone to SCOTUS. ~Remember too, Manchin voted against Dems to change the filibuster rules in 2013 for Obama's judicial nominees and again against Republicans to force Trump's SCOTUS nominees in 2017. So, he's a big fat no to circumvent the "inert" rule. ~This is going to make the fight for (and defeat of) the BBB look like kiddie play. Good times, ahead. You're welcome. ~@Maximus_4EVR ?? PS Feel free to share this post across platforms. Just link back to it please.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	SCOTUS opening
Date:	1/28/2022 9:54:09 AM (updated 1/28/2022 10:02:56 AM)

Joe had a chance to vote for a black woman for the federal courts, but he used the racist jim crow filibuster to sink her nomination.  Guess besides just a pedo he is racist and sexist for attacking a black woman - as well as a hispanic man according to the link by Chip Roy in the article.

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/rick-moran/2022/01/27/in-2003-joe-biden-filibustered-and-voted-against-nomination-of-a-black-woman-to-the-federal-bench-n1553633

In 2003, then-President George W. Bush nominated Janice Rogers Brown, an associate justice on the California Supreme Court to serve as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She was the first black woman nominated for the federal bench.

But Rogers Brown had a problem; she was a libertarian-conservative and refused to play ball with civil rights organizations.

One of her major decisions was a dissent in the case of forcing cigarette manufacturers to put warning labels on packs and cartons. A truly libertarian decision. She also attacked the New Deal, which gave us Social Security and other programs as “the triumph of our socialist revolution.” You can imagine the anger of her liberal colleagues over that one.

But Joe Biden, champion of civil rights and the president who has gloried in naming the first minorities to several positions in his administration, filibustered against her nomination and voted twice against her. When Biden had the chance to vote for a black woman, he declined.

link

Leaked internal memos to Democratic Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin mention liberal interest groups' desire to keep Estrada off the court because of his potential to be a future Supreme Court nominee, and because his latino roots might make his nomination difficult to oppose.^[6] A spokesman for Durbin said that "no one intended racist remarks against Estrada" and that the memo only meant to highlight that Estrada was "politically dangerous" because Democrats knew he would be an "attractive candidate" that would be difficult to contest since he didn't have any record.^[6] 

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	SCOTUS opening
Date:	1/28/2022 4:35:58 PM

Unless there is something really objectionable about the nominee, and not just that they are a left wing nut, they will get out of committee.  The reality in my mind is this.  The President nominates and the Senate advises and consents. Under the new rules that is majority vote.  So it will take a really bad nominee that would also be blocked by Dems in the committee to keep them from a vote.