Early days.
1 Like
1 better. Gotta be trans.
One thing to watch is thereās already a āthe Vice President canāt break a tie to approve a Supreme Court justiceā take floating around. I donāt think it is going to matter on this one, I think a couple republicans peel off, but if a conservative justice was to suddenly leave for whatever reason expect a lot of ācanāt approve a new justice with 50ā ret conning.
1 Like
maybe murk, donāt think anyone else would think of it in an election year
apparently this is technically true with judges
but Rās did it previously anyway with pence breaking ties
Iām sure they will totally will adhere to the precedent set and will not insist something silly like ābut that doesnāt apply to the supreme courtā
Fuck it, I hope they do it. Might rile up our base enough to make the midterms competitive, and itās that much more pressure on eDems to stop respecting stupid norms.
Ah but not with a Supreme Court judge I donāt think. Sorry libs those are the rules
Narrator
2 Likes
Yeah but that was before he found out about a high school essay she wrote about renaming schools named after Robert E. Lee, or something.
Well sheās 55, so thatās older than the other two.
1 Like
South Carolina district court judge who went to southern schools, including university is south Carolina. Lindsey probably gets nontrivial boost in general election by supporting her.
On my current limited info, I like the CA supreme court judge. Unless she went to Harvard or Yale, in which case fuck her.
You would not be historically correct.
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1487867756838010881?t=mJaPkfrIyHiTeKzgCx3GKw&s=19
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1487896843430371330?t=b7rSKmgXCrCDOzeA_F0D-w&s=19
Strong federal appeals court experience has been common since Ginsburg, but thatās so republicans can have certainty about deplorableness and so Dems can unify around credentialism.
1 Like
The chart above shows no one has gone direct from the district court (aka trial court) to Supreme since Eisenhower. Thereās not really a rational reason other than who has been identified as āpromisingā high court candidate. Imo, selection between district court and appeals court job is usually fairly arbitrary, maybe more law profs or ex supreme court clerks are nominees for court of appeals. There should be more, not less, district court experience at the supreme court.
1 Like
Arenāt there quite a few with no trial experience? Just went straight to an appeals court?
They should literally put Peter from 5-4 on the court. He would be way better than any of these morons that still think the court is anything but an all powerful super legislature.
2 Likes
And people make the mistake of looking at the ages and thinking there isnāt a big difference between the two if itās, say, 55 and 49. Whatever, itās basically 10%, no big deal right?
Well for starters look at it as expected years remaining. She probably has like 27, and a 49 year old probably has like 34.
Now itās a gap of more than 20%. Apply that to pick after pick and what happens? You lose the court over time.
1 Like
As the chart shows, Sotomayor is the only sitting justice with trial court experience. (There are some funky exceptions when some summers justices will sit with a court of appeals or sometimes as trial court judges, but I think thatās voluntary and Bryer is the only one I am aware of who has done it.)
I have the attention span of a gnat this week.
Iād like to get jonathon Turley in the chair and go through every single justice in US history and ask why a female or minority wasnāt considered.
All the way back to Marshall
Wasnāt black- because blacks were actual property
Wasnāt female-because women were treated as property.
Thats the first four score and seven. Once we started to get black and female lawyers, then whats the excuse.
Make him admit that the first 100 were due to racial, religious, and gender exclusion. Just because thatās the way itās always been. Because blacks, women, and non Protestants were considered lesser and still are
Jfc