8 ms·

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer to Retire

34 points by nozzlegear 5y ago

tharne 5y ago
- FiReaNG3L 5y ago
  Sure, you can see it that way, and positive discrimination is bad we can agree on. But you can also see that pool of 7% containing top tier candidates ignored for the longest time - it's like a tree that nobody wanted the fruits of for the stupidest reason.
  - tharne 5y ago
    Point taken, but there's a big difference between saying, "We're going to take hard look at candidates from groups that have historically been passed over so we can get a great justice" and "We're only going to nominate someone from a very specific and small demographic group." I think most reasonable people would agree that the first approach is a good one and the second is misguided.
    - FiReaNG3L 5y ago
      Completely agree with you - it doesn't even do justice to appoint candidates on positive discrimination, as it opens the candidate / legacy to 'the only reason they were there is that they are X minority'.
  - screye 5y ago
    > While the percentage of female lawyers has increased slowly over the past decade (31% in 2010 vs. 37% in 2020), recent gains among people of color are minimal. Just 5% of all lawyers are Black, the same percentage as 10 years ago Statistically closer to 2%. I am all for having a female black supreme court justice, if they're the top candidate. But, it has to begin with better representation at the grassroots level first. It is admittedly higher at Ivy law league schools it is 0.73*11 = 8%, but these are representative of the sub-25 yr old population which isn't being considered for the role. With 1/9 being 11%, having 1 black person on the supreme court would be the closest to accurate representation. From the perspective of equity, black people are not underrepresented in the supreme court.
    - polski-g 5y ago
      Supreme court justices should be determined by ability, not racial/gender quotas. And there is already a black SC justice.
      - screye 5y ago
        > determined by ability, not racial/gender quotas Yeah, I have no dog in this fight. I was merely pointing out, that the case for diversity as championed by Biden (or his cabinet/loudest supporters) contradicts his choice to push for a candidate that would lead to over-representation of a certain community in the Supreme Court.
- Dumblydorr 5y ago
  What's your point? Trump limited himself to young white Christian conservatives with proven far-right agendas, that's more limited than 7%. The fact we've had 7% black women for decades and never had a single one as a supreme court judge is something Democrats obviously care to change. They'd like judges to have diverse views and life experiences, reflective of the diversity of the electorate, not just more white Christian conservatives.
  - tharne 5y ago
    > What's your point? Trump limited himself to young white Christian conservatives with proven far-right agendas, that's more limited than 7%. My point is that I don't want Donald Trump to set the bar on what is right and appropriate conduct for an American president. I don't think citing Trump's many shortcomings makes it okay for Biden to do dumb things like automatically ruling out 93% of the population on the basis of race and gender.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Dumblydorr 5y ago
      Why is it dumb for him to select a black woman? Maybe he disagrees with your tacit assumptions that race and gender don't matter, that background and identity matter to no one. Sorry to say, meritocracy is rarely the system anywhere, research has shown diverse teams perform better. And pragmatically, this is politics, sides with teams exist in politics, different groups exist, representation matters. Would it be smart for the Dems to not please their supporters who elected them? Keep in mind, Biden beat Bernie in the primary largely due to huge wins with black democrats in the South.
      - tharne 5y ago
        Did anyone say it was dumb to select a black women? Nope, nobody did. What's dumb is automatically ruling out over 90% of potential candidates on basis of race and gender alone.
jimbob45 5y ago
I'm guessing they nominate Obama in the tradition of Taft. In an election year that conservatives are expected to sweep, Manchin/Sinema voters could be upset if their representatives lose them the ability to seat a justice of their choice. It is my belief that Obama is the only nominee that would have widely bipartisan unconditional support.
- meepmorp 5y ago
  > It is my belief that Obama is the only nominee that would have widely bipartisan unconditional support. The last decade has destroyed my sense of irony, so I really don’t known if you’re being serious or not.
- JadeNB 5y ago
  > It is my belief that Obama is the only nominee that would have widely bipartisan unconditional support. I think it is impossible after having lived through the Obama administration to think that Obama would get bipartisan support. (EDIT: It turns out @meepmorp said the same more pithily: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30088921#30089293 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30088921#30089293 .) For that matter, obstructionist opposition is not about the nominee; it's believable that the GOP would have refused to seat Kavanaugh or ACB, if they had been nominated by Obama.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- awb 5y ago
  Um, I remember McConnell overtly saying they would stop at nothing to block Obama’s agenda. Sure, Obama might get 50+% support from voters, but it’s not a popular vote and no single Republican Senator would vote to confirm him, McConnell would make sure of it. He’s made a career out of trying to stop Obama. Plus, Obama’s entire presidency would be used to show political bias. With an unknown judge name, there’s a slight veneer of impartiality. With a past President, there isn’t.
mrguyorama 5y ago
Oh good, can't wait for Republicans to somehow claim a current sitting president is ineligible to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and then instantly vote for whatever wacko they pull off the street in 2024. It's so frustrating that Republicans can just ignore law and continue to get elected. Meanwhile they call themselves the party of law and order, apparently that's only law and order for outsiders.
- CameronNemo 5y ago
  I think the timing of this is specifically to avoid that scenario if Republicans retake the Senate. The risk is that Sinema and Manchin have shown very little party loyalty. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they say we should bring back the filibuster for judicial appointments.
  - simplicio 5y ago
    They've been reliable votes Biden's on judicial nominees, I dont think there's any reason to think they'd change here.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- wtf_is_up 5y ago
- simplicio 5y ago
  They can claim it, but they don't have a Senate majority this time around, so they can't do anything about it.
- dang 5y ago
  Please don't take HN threads straight into predictable flamewar hell. That's not the quality of discussion we're trying for here. Perhaps you don't feel you owe an opposing party better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
ortusdux 5y ago
I'm taking this as a sign that the Dems don't have high hopes for the midterms.
- loudtieblahblah 5y ago
  https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferences-shifted-greatly-during-2021.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferen... Dems are going to get slaughtered in '22.
  - loudtieblahblah 5y ago
    Go ahead and down vote me but Republicans havent seen numbers like this since the GOP took the House under Bush Sr. Facts is facts and the Dems are positioning themsleves in a way to mitigate and prepare for the loss. What makes it worse is that Biden likely won't be the one to run and Kamala being abandoned will embarrass the party almost more than keeping her.
    - bjtitus 5y ago
      > Biden likely won't be the one to run Why is this likely?
      - voisin 5y ago
        He’ll be insanely old and have accomplished nothing in his first term to overcome his age.
        bjtitus 5y ago
        There's still 3 years left until the end of his first term. A lot can change when there's still 3/4 of your term left. When he was elected he was 4 years older than the oldest sitting president (who preceded him). What makes you think the second term will be any different?
GoodJokes 5y ago

34 points by nozzlegear 5y ago

FiReaNG3L 5y ago
Sure, you can see it that way, and positive discrimination is bad we can agree on. But you can also see that pool of 7% containing top tier candidates ignored for the longest time - it's like a tree that nobody wanted the fruits of for the stupidest reason.
- tharne 5y ago
  Point taken, but there's a big difference between saying, "We're going to take hard look at candidates from groups that have historically been passed over so we can get a great justice" and "We're only going to nominate someone from a very specific and small demographic group." I think most reasonable people would agree that the first approach is a good one and the second is misguided.
  - FiReaNG3L 5y ago
    Completely agree with you - it doesn't even do justice to appoint candidates on positive discrimination, as it opens the candidate / legacy to 'the only reason they were there is that they are X minority'.
- screye 5y ago
  > While the percentage of female lawyers has increased slowly over the past decade (31% in 2010 vs. 37% in 2020), recent gains among people of color are minimal. Just 5% of all lawyers are Black, the same percentage as 10 years ago Statistically closer to 2%. I am all for having a female black supreme court justice, if they're the top candidate. But, it has to begin with better representation at the grassroots level first. It is admittedly higher at Ivy law league schools it is 0.73*11 = 8%, but these are representative of the sub-25 yr old population which isn't being considered for the role. With 1/9 being 11%, having 1 black person on the supreme court would be the closest to accurate representation. From the perspective of equity, black people are not underrepresented in the supreme court.
  - polski-g 5y ago
    Supreme court justices should be determined by ability, not racial/gender quotas. And there is already a black SC justice.
    - screye 5y ago
      > determined by ability, not racial/gender quotas Yeah, I have no dog in this fight. I was merely pointing out, that the case for diversity as championed by Biden (or his cabinet/loudest supporters) contradicts his choice to push for a candidate that would lead to over-representation of a certain community in the Supreme Court.
Dumblydorr 5y ago
What's your point? Trump limited himself to young white Christian conservatives with proven far-right agendas, that's more limited than 7%. The fact we've had 7% black women for decades and never had a single one as a supreme court judge is something Democrats obviously care to change. They'd like judges to have diverse views and life experiences, reflective of the diversity of the electorate, not just more white Christian conservatives.
- tharne 5y ago
  > What's your point? Trump limited himself to young white Christian conservatives with proven far-right agendas, that's more limited than 7%. My point is that I don't want Donald Trump to set the bar on what is right and appropriate conduct for an American president. I don't think citing Trump's many shortcomings makes it okay for Biden to do dumb things like automatically ruling out 93% of the population on the basis of race and gender.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Dumblydorr 5y ago
    Why is it dumb for him to select a black woman? Maybe he disagrees with your tacit assumptions that race and gender don't matter, that background and identity matter to no one. Sorry to say, meritocracy is rarely the system anywhere, research has shown diverse teams perform better. And pragmatically, this is politics, sides with teams exist in politics, different groups exist, representation matters. Would it be smart for the Dems to not please their supporters who elected them? Keep in mind, Biden beat Bernie in the primary largely due to huge wins with black democrats in the South.
    - tharne 5y ago
      Did anyone say it was dumb to select a black women? Nope, nobody did. What's dumb is automatically ruling out over 90% of potential candidates on basis of race and gender alone.

I'm guessing they nominate Obama in the tradition of Taft. In an election year that conservatives are expected to sweep, Manchin/Sinema voters could be upset if their representatives lose them the ability to seat a justice of their choice. It is my belief that Obama is the only nominee that would have widely bipartisan unconditional support.

meepmorp 5y ago
> It is my belief that Obama is the only nominee that would have widely bipartisan unconditional support. The last decade has destroyed my sense of irony, so I really don’t known if you’re being serious or not.
JadeNB 5y ago
> It is my belief that Obama is the only nominee that would have widely bipartisan unconditional support. I think it is impossible after having lived through the Obama administration to think that Obama would get bipartisan support. (EDIT: It turns out @meepmorp said the same more pithily: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30088921#30089293 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30088921#30089293 .) For that matter, obstructionist opposition is not about the nominee; it's believable that the GOP would have refused to seat Kavanaugh or ACB, if they had been nominated by Obama.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
awb 5y ago
Um, I remember McConnell overtly saying they would stop at nothing to block Obama’s agenda. Sure, Obama might get 50+% support from voters, but it’s not a popular vote and no single Republican Senator would vote to confirm him, McConnell would make sure of it. He’s made a career out of trying to stop Obama. Plus, Obama’s entire presidency would be used to show political bias. With an unknown judge name, there’s a slight veneer of impartiality. With a past President, there isn’t.

mrguyorama 5y ago

Oh good, can't wait for Republicans to somehow claim a current sitting president is ineligible to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and then instantly vote for whatever wacko they pull off the street in 2024. It's so frustrating that Republicans can just ignore law and continue to get elected. Meanwhile they call themselves the party of law and order, apparently that's only law and order for outsiders.

CameronNemo 5y ago
I think the timing of this is specifically to avoid that scenario if Republicans retake the Senate. The risk is that Sinema and Manchin have shown very little party loyalty. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they say we should bring back the filibuster for judicial appointments.
- simplicio 5y ago
  They've been reliable votes Biden's on judicial nominees, I dont think there's any reason to think they'd change here.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
wtf_is_up 5y ago
simplicio 5y ago
They can claim it, but they don't have a Senate majority this time around, so they can't do anything about it.
dang 5y ago
Please don't take HN threads straight into predictable flamewar hell. That's not the quality of discussion we're trying for here. Perhaps you don't feel you owe an opposing party better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

ortusdux 5y ago

I'm taking this as a sign that the Dems don't have high hopes for the midterms.

loudtieblahblah 5y ago
https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferences-shifted-greatly-during-2021.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication https://news.gallup.com/poll/388781/political-party-preferen... Dems are going to get slaughtered in '22.
- loudtieblahblah 5y ago
  Go ahead and down vote me but Republicans havent seen numbers like this since the GOP took the House under Bush Sr. Facts is facts and the Dems are positioning themsleves in a way to mitigate and prepare for the loss. What makes it worse is that Biden likely won't be the one to run and Kamala being abandoned will embarrass the party almost more than keeping her.
  - bjtitus 5y ago
    > Biden likely won't be the one to run Why is this likely?
    - voisin 5y ago
      He’ll be insanely old and have accomplished nothing in his first term to overcome his age.
      - bjtitus 5y ago
        There's still 3 years left until the end of his first term. A lot can change when there's still 3/4 of your term left. When he was elected he was 4 years older than the oldest sitting president (who preceded him). What makes you think the second term will be any different?

GoodJokes 5y ago