- Joined
- Jun 1, 2007
- Messages
- 36,221
- Reaction score
- 59,788
Oh my! She should’ve used “jiggery-pokery,” or “argle bargle.” Or how about kulturkampf, tell me that isn’t some dark sounding made up shit.
All courtesy of the late, great Antonin Scalia.
This isn’t a business.
POTUS “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the Supreme Court.”
That’s it. There’s no other qualifications specified. Those things happened, she’s rated Well Qualified by the ABA, so what is the issue?
I’ve been consistent on this since the beginning. My problem is based on the fact that the talent pool for selection was artificially limited to an absurd level based on immutable characteristics that were irrelevant to the role.What side step. Do you think considering the demographics or personal characteristics of a judge is improper? That's your entire argument. If you think Jackson's appointment was improper, you're also arguing that Thurgood Marshall's appointment was improper. I believe both picks were qualified, and the president had discretion to use race or his own preferences to narrow down the pick.
Here's Johnson's remarks: "I believe he earned that appointment; he deserves the appointment. He is best qualified by training and by very valuable service to the country. I believe it is the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man and the right place."
Are you so biased that you can't read between he lines as to what the bolded part refers to (Marshall's race) or who he is addressing (those who would accuse Marshall of being a DEI pick)? Keep in mind that the only people considered for this nomination were black or women.