[Pete Svarrior]

To answer Rushy's question:
It will end when every combination of human is on the supreme court.

That's gonna be one big SC lmao

[Lord Dave]

To answer Rushy's question:
It will end when every combination of human is on the supreme court.

That's gonna be one big SC lmao

Well, there isn't a limit to how many justices SCOTUS has...

[honk]

If a person campaigns on nominating only a white man to the Supreme Court, would you have a problem with that?

Yes, because promising to exclude minority groups is very different to promising to include minority groups. Majority groups and minority groups are not equivalent, and substituting one in place of the other just isn't an effective comparison.

Well, there isn't a limit to how many justices SCOTUS has...

Democrats should expand the court to punish Republicans for their sleazy partisanship over Barrett, just saying.

[Pete Svarrior]

Democrats should expand the court to punish Republicans for their sleazy partisanship over Barrett, just saying.

Yes, that would go about as well as the last time they successfully compromised SCOTUS. It would be fun to watch, if nothing else!

[Rama Set]

I only support white men on the Supreme Court, as I, like you, judge nominees based on physical characteristics. If it's not a white man, I don't support their nomination. In the future I'll only vote for candidates that say "I will nominate a white man to the Supreme Court!" because apparently it's okay to promise that and then do it.

Pretty cringe thinking the black experience in the US is the same as the white one.

Also, I did discuss Kavanaugh extensively here, but you apparently weren't here to read that. Where were you when that happened? I guess you didn't care because you don't even remember it!

Citation needed.  What about Barrett?

And on towards an even more racist future. You're not observing racism going away or being moved past. You're watching it being continued.

The right can't help but panic about everything.

As long as you admit she didn't earn the position on merit (and no one should or does, apparently), whatever else you say is needless fluff.

Perhaps she earned the nomination through a combination of resume and politics (find me a justice who hasn't), but she earned the position through a vote in the Senate.  The GOP apparently believed she was more deserving than Barrett or Kavanagh too.

[Rushy]

“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman,” Trump said. “I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men.”
He added that he did not yet know whom he would choose.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/20/trump-vows-to-nominate-a-woman-for-us-supreme-court-vacancy-within-a-week

More history, doesn’t make it right, just the way it is:

"I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman," Trump said Sept. 19, 2020, during a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. He later added: "It will be a woman, a very talented, very brilliant woman. I haven’t chosen yet, but we have numerous women on the list."
_____________

Decades earlier, President Ronald Reagan said that if he were elected, he would nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court. "It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists," he said at a news conference weeks before the 1980 election, according to the Washington Post.

A year later, Reagan followed through, nominating Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
_____________

In 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower told his attorney general, "I still want the name of some fine, prominent Catholic to nominate to the bench," according to books by historian David A. Nichols, a former professor at Southwestern College, and Sheldon Goldman, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
_____________

Contemporary reporting also indicated that President George H. W. Bush concentrated the search that ended with Thomas’ swearing-in in 1991 mostly on minority and female candidates, though Bush denied that he was trying to satisfy a "quota" by replacing one Black justice with another. Thomas replaced Marshall, a former civil rights attorney and the court’s first Black justice, who retired due to health issues.

Ah, so the US does have long history of racism and seeks to continue it. I suppose this is just another bad decision I should get used to seeing more of.

Pretty cringe thinking the black experience in the US is the same as the white one.

Pretty cringe to think one black person's experience is the same as another merely because they share a skin tone. That's the sort of racist rhetoric I've come to expect from you, though.

Citation needed.  What about Barrett?

You brought up an irrelevant topic. If you want to dig for my opinions on them, there's a search bar at the top of the page. You can't bring something up then demand I source it for you. Well, you can, but you shouldn't.

The right can't help but panic about everything.

It's not a surprise that a racist like yourself devolves to generalizing an entire spectrum of political beliefs as well.

Perhaps she earned the nomination through a combination of resume and politics (find me a justice who hasn't), but she earned the position through a vote in the Senate.  The GOP apparently believed she was more deserving than Barrett or Kavanagh too.

Biden specifying it must be a black woman means her other qualities are merely coincidence. As Saddam explained earlier, the court isn't one of merit, so I suppose her qualifications shouldn't matter to anyone anyway.

[Rama Set]

Pretty cringe to think one black person's experience is the same as another merely because they share a skin tone. That's the sort of racist rhetoric I've come to expect from you, though.

Strawman. Interesting tactic.

You brought up an irrelevant topic. If you want to dig for my opinions on them, there's a search bar at the top of the page. You can't bring something up then demand I source it for you. Well, you can, but you shouldn't.

I did. You complained about Dems, never about how those nominees were solely to prop up GOP wedge issues. I see you are a dishonest actor posing as someone with ethics.

It's not a surprise that a racist like yourself devolves to generalizing an entire spectrum of political beliefs as well.

Alright. You and every other right winger here panic at everything. Happy

Biden specifying it must be a black woman means her other qualities are merely coincidence.

What a terrible analysis. No wonder your take on this is so vapid.

As Saddam explained earlier, the court isn't one of merit, so I suppose her qualifications shouldn't matter to anyone anyway.

Saddam’s generalization is not accurate, but go ahead and continue agreeing with your critics then tell them they are wrong.

[honk]

Democrats should expand the court to punish Republicans for their sleazy partisanship over Barrett, just saying.

Yes, that would go about as well as the last time they successfully compromised SCOTUS. It would be fun to watch, if nothing else!

Okay, so presumably you're referring to the thing about the nuclear option that was discussed in the Trump thread after Ginsburg died. First, Democrats did not use the nuclear option to remove the 60-vote requirement for Supreme Court nominees, Republicans did. Democrats had previously used the nuclear option to remove the 60-vote requirement for confirming Cabinet posts and federal judges. But to put it as simply as possible, that doesn't matter. Democrats removing the 60-vote requirement for confirming Cabinet posts was in no way a requirement or a necessary first step for removing the 60-vote requirement for SC justices. As the article I linked discusses, Republicans were ready to use the nuclear option over the SC back in the Bush years, long before the Democrats ever did anything comparable, and it's ludicrous to think that they, having grown far more determined and unscrupulous in recent years, would have hesitated to be the first to use the nuclear option nowadays. And more importantly, nobody was criticizing Barrett's nomination for not requiring 60 votes to be confirmed. They were criticizing it for being shoved through in the last few weeks of a Republican presidency when Republicans had just a few years previously refused to allow a Democratic president to nominate someone in the last several months of their presidency. This only happened a couple of years ago, and it's easy to check what people were actually saying. This tit-for-tat, Democrats-should-blame-themselves narrative simply is not an accurate reflection of what really happened.

Biden specifying it must be a black woman means her other qualities are merely coincidence.

What a strange thing to say. That doesn't logically follow at all.

As Saddam explained earlier, the court isn't one of merit, so I suppose her qualifications shouldn't matter to anyone anyway.

I said it's not purely based on merit, which is absolutely true. If ideology and youth can and should be taken into account, then why not race and gender?

[Pete Svarrior]

This tit-for-tat, Democrats-should-blame-themselves narrative simply is not an accurate reflection of what really happened.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. The outcome, and its consequences to SCOTUS, remain the same

[honk]

The outcome does remain the same, yes. Republicans will fight dirty and act in bad faith regardless of what Democrats do or don't do, and the sooner Democrats realize that, the better off they'll be. The same thing applies to the media and their desperate efforts to both-sides what's going on. I'm not happy about the state of politics in this country, but it's the reality.

[Pete Svarrior]

The outcome does remain the same, yes. Republicans will fight dirty and act in bad faith regardless of what Democrats do or don't do, and the sooner Democrats realize that, the better off they'll be.

Man, blaming the other side for your side's failings sure is gonna help. I can 100% see this going your way.

[honk]

You flatter me, but my views unfortunately seem to have no bearing on how the Democrats run themselves or their approach to future elections. I question how much they could even be considered "my side" at this point. They're preferable to Republicans, but at a certain point their favored brand of quiet don't-rock-the-boat centrism becomes indistinguishable from conservatism. junker tried to warn me.

[Pete Svarrior]

You flatter me, but my views unfortunately seem to have no bearing on how the Democrats run themselves or their approach to future elections.

Of course not. You're just an example of the mentality, insignificant as you may be. It's entertaining nonetheless!

[honk]

Right. Anyway, white men should be barred from the SC forever, discuss.

[juner]

Republicans will fight dirty and act in bad faith regardless of what Democrats do or don't do, and the sooner Democrats realize that, the better off they'll be.

Hot take time. Democrats already know that and have known it for many years, and they are not better off.

[crutonius]

I have an additional hot take.  They're aware of it but they don't care.  Trying to lead the country sucks.  It's way easier to be the minority party and bittch and mon about the other party.

It's like the baseball episode of South Park.  Where they both hate the game but they can't tell their parents.  So they get amazing at being bad at it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Losing_Edge

A great episode.  Definitely worth wtching.