GlockTalk Forum banner

Should Trump nominate a replacement for Ginsburg?

  • Yes, nominate someone immediately and begin hearings

    Votes: 281 93.4%
  • No, wait until after inauguration

    Votes: 20 6.6%
181 - 200 of 211 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
54,598 Posts
Remember what they did.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: snerd and flyover

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
54,598 Posts
Does anyone else think it’s WRONG to make the initial SCOTUS screening by DNA/sex gland type??? This eliminates many (most?) of the senior experienced jurists in the U.S.! Doesn’t it embarrass the final Supreme Court Judge to say: “well, no, I wasn’t the most qualified attorney but I had the specified sex glands.....?”
Who then would you nominate?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,358 Posts
Does anyone else think it’s WRONG to make the initial SCOTUS screening by DNA/sex gland type??? This eliminates many (most?) of the senior experienced jurists in the U.S.! Doesn’t it embarrass the final Supreme Court Judge to say: “well, no, I wasn’t the most qualified attorney but I had the specified sex glands.....?”
Of course it's wrong, but the fact is the Senate must confirm, and that makes every appointment political.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
458 Posts
Who then would you nominate?
Is this a trick question? How about nominating the most qualified PERSON? Wasn’t there a recent Supreme Court decision which said that it was discriminatory to promote black firefighters over more qualified white firefighters based only on the need to fill a black quota? Wouldn’t it be fascinating if SCOTUS had to hear a case wherein a male attorney challenged Trump nomination of a lessor qualified female for SCOTUS? Or perhaps a National class action brought by male attorneys challenging the ‘female only’ SCOTUS selection criteria? Lots of precedents here from cases brought, interestingly enough, by females.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
54,598 Posts
The arguments against:
  • Democrats will be outraged, and will be more motivated to vote, no matter how bad Biden is as a candidate
The down-ticket candidates are the important votes. If Dems control the Houses AND Senate, we know they'll begin restructuring the SCOTUS.


We Must Win Both Sides.jpg
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
54,598 Posts
Is this a trick question?
No.
How about nominating the most qualified PERSON?
What constitutes "the most qualified PERSON"? What qualities/credentials must a PERSON possess to sit on the Court? What qualities/credentials do the women on the shortlist not have?
Wasn’t there a recent Supreme Court decision which said that it was discriminatory to promote black firefighters over more qualified white firefighters based only on the need to fill a black quota?
The key here is a quota being used, a ratio of hires based on race. What is the quota of females set for the SCOTUS?
Wouldn’t it be fascinating if SCOTUS had to hear a case wherein a male attorney challenged Trump nomination of a lessor qualified female for SCOTUS?
I believe you mean a "male judge". That would be interesting.

The challenged associate justice would recuse themselves. That would leave an 8-member Court. Hypothetically that could result in a 4-4 decision.

A better question would be can the Court even hear a case and vote to exclude a member, a member appointed for life, because they are not liked.

That's the purpose of the Senate hearings. Present all facts that disqualify a candidate, then vote to reject or confirm the nominee.
Or perhaps a National class action brought by male attorneys challenging the ‘female only’ SCOTUS selection criteria?
See above...
 
  • Like
Reactions: jr24

·
Banned
Joined
·
458 Posts
No.
What constitutes "the most qualified PERSON"? What qualities/credentials must a PERSON possess to sit on the Court? What qualities/credentials do the women on the shortlist not have?
The key here is a quota being used, a ratio of hires based on race. What is the quota of females set for the SCOTUS?
I believe you mean a "male judge". That would be interesting.

The challenged associate justice would recuse themselves. That would leave an 8-member Court. Hypothetically that could result in a 4-4 decision.

A better question would be can the Court even hear a case and vote to exclude a member, a member appointed for life, because they are not liked.

That's the purpose of the Senate hearings. Present all facts that disqualify a candidate, then vote to reject or confirm the nominee.
See above...
Well, no. Isn’t the issue whether law was not followed and illegal sex discrimination occurred rather than just “not liked”?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
54,598 Posts
SCOTUS IN JEOPARDY.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: flyover

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,653 Posts
Does anyone else think it’s WRONG to make the initial SCOTUS screening by DNA/sex gland type??? This eliminates many (most?) of the senior experienced jurists in the U.S.! Doesn’t it embarrass the final Supreme Court Judge to say: “well, no, I wasn’t the most qualified attorney but I had the specified sex glands.....?”
What an ignorant crock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,241 Posts
Does anyone else think it’s WRONG to make the initial SCOTUS screening by DNA/sex gland type??? This eliminates many (most?) of the senior experienced jurists in the U.S.! Doesn’t it embarrass the final Supreme Court Judge to say: “well, no, I wasn’t the most qualified attorney but I had the specified sex glands.....?”
Don't you pick your mate based on sex glands ?

Don't you remember that you blushed embarrassed at one time or another, when a family member asked you about your sex gland picked friend ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,004 Posts
You also are basically OK with liberals working to get an 11 or 13 person SCOTUS the next time a "Biden" wins the office. Those will be young AOC approved justices who will outlive everyone here on this board most likely. You're screwing your kids. Save your SHTF no-rule, war is hell mentality for if/when Biden appoints 3 justices...
My main concern I've heard brought up is alienating some voters. And also I suppose that I think fraud by the Dems is a 100% certainty this election. I know I'm a broken record but I still say they pulled some shenanigans in NC to put Roy Cooper in the Governor's mansion.

But regarding your point there....what's to stop the Dems from doing it anyway should they get the chance?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
Does anyone else think it’s WRONG to make the initial SCOTUS screening by DNA/sex gland type??? This eliminates many (most?) of the senior experienced jurists in the U.S.! Doesn’t it embarrass the final Supreme Court Judge to say: “well, no, I wasn’t the most qualified attorney but I had the specified sex glands.....?”
If this was a Democrat President, then gender and race would certainly be top criteria, same as their pick for the person who could potentially become leader of the (for now) free world. It could just be that the President believes his nominee espouses the same views of the Constitution that he does. I have no doubt that the fact it's a woman will be played for political points, but I doubt that's the number one criteria, more like icing on the cake. I would expect Democrats to think he's playing identity politics, because that's what they would do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,914 Posts
What an ignorant crock.
Is it? We use to call affirmative action reverse racism. 5 women are being discussed. I am not saying they aren't qualified enough but what happened to choosing the best person for the position.

Maybe we can get our first transgender for the next pick?

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squid1

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,151 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: Sharkey
181 - 200 of 211 Posts
Top