The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
WaPo: Biden will make 11 judicial nominations on Tuesday
Circuit nominees to CADC, CA7, and CAFC. District Court nominees to DNJ, DDC, DMD, DCO, and DNM. None of these nominations will have blue slip problems.
The Washington Post reports that President Biden will make 11 judicial nominations on Tuesday.
First, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will be nominated to replace Judge Garland on the D.C. Circuit. She is 50 years old
Second, Zahid N. Quraishi a magistrate judge in New Jersey, will be nominated to some district court. It is unclear which one, though I suspect the District of New Jersey, which has a massive backlog of cases. Quraishi attended Rutgers law school from 1997-2000. According to Law.com, he was born in July 1975, which would make him 44.
Third, Candace Jackson-Akiwumi will be nominated to the Seventh Circuit. She graduated Yale Law School in 2005 and graduated Princeton undergrad in 2000. I couldn't find an exact birthday, but she is probably in her early 40s.
Fourth, Tiffany Cunningham will be nominated to the Federal Circuit. She graduated Harvard Law School in 2001, and completed a degree at MIT in 1998. She is also probably in her early 40s.
Fifth, Magistrate Judge Deborah Boardman will be nominated to the District of Maryland. She graduated UVA Law in 2000. She is probably in her mid 40s.
Sixth, Judge Lydia Griggsby of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, will also be nominated to the District of Maryland. She is 53.
Seventh, D.C. Superior Court Judge Florence Y. Pan will be selected to fill Judge Brown Jackson's seat on the District Court. She is 54.
Eight, Julien Neals, a county counsel and acting Bergen County administrator, will be nominated to serve on the District of New Jersey. He was previously nominated by President Obama in 2015, but his nomination expired in 2017. He is about 55 years old.
Ninth, Regina Rodriguez will serve on the District of Colorado. President Obama previously nominated her in 2016, but her nomination expired. She is about 57.
Tenth, Margaret Strickland will be nominated to the District of New Mexico. She was admitted to the Bar circa 2006. She is probably in her early 40s.
Eleventh, Rupa Ranga Puttagunta will be selected for D.C. Superior Court (a territorial, non-Article III Court). She graduated from Ohio State College of Law in 2007 and from Vassar College in 2002. She is probably in her late 30s.
With the exception of Judge Brown Jackson, I am not familiar with these nominees. None of these seats will have blue slip problems. They are either in DC, or states with two Democratic senators.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Want to take another run at that one, champ?
This is just the most egregious example. There are plenty of others that don't make sense.
For example, if Ms. Cunningham graduated from MIT in 1998, she was likely born in 1976 (as most people graduate at age 22, possibly later). That means she's likely 45, not "in her early 40s." Same thing with Ms. Puttagunta. Graduating in 2002 means born in 1980 and turning 41, not "late 30s."
I wouldn't have noticed, but ever single example portrays the person as younger than is likely, which suggests that there's some other motivation going on.
Most definitely. Especially since Blackman had no problem with the prior administration putting 33 year old's with no trial experience in lifetime positions.
Copy and paste from an old write up?
One may be a Muslim and a loyal American. Most Muslims I knew supported Trump. It is impossible to be a Yale Law grad and not a traitor to America.
Apparently White Males need not apply...
Welcome to the pro-criminal, big government, America hating, impoverished hellscape, Biden voters. You deserve to suffer for your awful judgment.
I’ve been trapped in a pro-criminal, big government, America hating, impoverished hellscape, and I love it!
You may be a rent seeking parasite. You are doing very well. I pray you don't get jacked.
Should I ask my physician about possible treatments for this condition?
I hope you at least recognized (and enjoyed) the reference!
Your condition is called rent seeking. You collect money at the point of a gun. You give it to parasitic scumbags who return nothing of value for it. Every year they breathe, they actually destroy $millions of economic value. Every dollar of economic value in all history had only one source, human labor. Rent seeking is not only armed robbery, it is slavery. The gun used to collect the money induces a fear reaction in the brain and is a physical procedure on the body. All legal remedies must be subjected to safety and effectiveness studies before enactment.
I drove around the Washington Beltway, this week. The vile scumbags are doing great. I saw a forest of tall building cranes. Leadership and lawmaking is an essential utility product. It is in utter failure. To use an analogy, the electricity is on 1 hour a day, at random times, and the cost is high. You need to be fired.
The government, Bigtech and Wall Street complex is the most dangerous and destructive at all. Notice how they think the "right" of 85 IQ mental children to vote and the "right" of a gay man to erupt in another man's rear are paramount?
You sure are obsessed with gay butt sex.
NTTAWWT.
What I don't get is why this douche bag is lamenting the fact that progressives are the ones protecting its right to vote.
Atkenberg78, though you have the mental capacity of a worn baseball glove (and I'd guess you know how to limber one up) and you likely always make the wrong decision, right thinking people support your right to make stupid decisions at election time. Get over it.
Why is your statement any different than, "Apparently everybody but White Males need not apply," which was the standard for most of our nation's history?
Because we supposedly live in an era where discrimination based on race and sex doesn't exist anymore.
But if it DOES exist, but just pointed in a different direction, well...
So would you say Biden is a traitor to his race?
No. Next fake question?
You are arguing that Biden, a white guy, is discriminating against guys and whites.
By you and Ed’s thesis, is he not betraying his own people?
That would imply he owes something to his race. One can't betray what one has no preexisting obligations or loyalty to.
Rather, he's a traitor to human rights. General principles that transcend race.
Was HW Bush a traitor to human rights when he picked Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall? Because race was certainly a big part of the consideration there.
Yeah, somewhat.
"Was HW Bush a traitor to human rights when he picked Clarence Thomas to replace Thurgood Marshall? Because race was certainly a big part of the consideration there."
Were there any better candidates, from HWB's perspective?
Sure. Reagan and Bush had by that time appointed judges for 10 years. There were tons of conservatives on the bench. He had, pun intended, a deep bench.
"There were tons of conservatives on the bench."
The first and only black justice, for political reasons, had to be replaced by a black.
So the "bench" was the circle of black GOP federal judges at that time. A pretty short bench. Thomas was the best of the bunch, especially if you factor in his age.
"The first and only black justice, for political reasons, had to be replaced by a black."
Taking into account race for political reasons. Yeah, that's racism.
"General principles that transcend race."
Trump's record on judicial nominees did not transcend race, yet right-wingers couldn't get enough of that sweet, male, Whiteness.
I ascribe this to Republican bigotry.
"Trump’s record on judicial nominees did not transcend race,"
Any evidence to support that, or are you sinning against the Congregation of Reason?
Do your own research, clinger. Check the degree to which the numbers of White nominees and male nominees defied the odds while appeasing the residual clingers among us.
85% white, and 76% male. Which makes them enormously more representative of the population than Biden's picks. Practically a rounding error away from perfect representation, compared to Biden's 0% white male.
"85% white, and 76% male. Which makes them enormously more representative of the population than Biden’s picks. Practically a rounding error away from perfect representation,"
What inclines you to contend that the population of lawyers in the relevant age range (35 to 50, or something similar) is 76 percent male and/or 85 percent white?
Other than your White supremacy, I mean.
64% of lawyers are men and 36% are women in 2019. 85% of lawyers are white, compared to 77% of the U.S. population. Only 5% of lawyers are African American, 5% are Hispanic, and 3% are Asian.
https://www.mycase.com/blog/2019/08/aba-2019-report-lawyer-demographics-earnings-tech-choices-and-more/
"64% of lawyers are men and 36% are women in 2019. 85% of lawyers are white, compared to 77% of the U.S. population. Only 5% of lawyers are African American, 5% are Hispanic, and 3% are Asian."
That 64 percent figure likely includes plenty of (much) older lawyers who graduated when women generally were not welcome at law schools. It therefore is unlikely to reflect the relevant group -- those in the 35-to-55 range -- from which judicial nominees tend to be selected.
How many years ago was America 77 percent White? 35? 40? 45? Most of the recent figures I recall approximate 60 percent (and dropping).
Other than that . . . your comment is still lame.
"What inclines you to contend that the population of lawyers in the relevant age range (35 to 50, or something similar) is 76 percent male and/or 85 percent white?"
What inclines you to contend that the population of lawyers in the relevant age range isn't much closer to 76 percent male and/or 85 percent white, than it is to 0/0?
Nothing.
Having fun here, bigots?
1. Ed and I aren't the same person, nor do we share the same thesis
2. "His own people..." Which "people" would those be?
Let's get at a larger point for you with an example.
In the recent Captain America and the Winter Soldier episode, a kid calls out to Sam Wilson, "Hey, it Black Falcon!" To which Sam replies "Just Falcon, kid." The kid responds "Oh no, my dad told me it's Black Falcon". And Sam replies "Because I'm Black, and because I'm the Falcon? So are you like Black kid?"
Why is this important? Because of how people are being characterized. Sam is being distinctly and specifically called out based on his race, and then whoever he is. As if his race supersedes who he is as a person (or superhero). But Sam correctly states that who he is as a person or superhero is not contingent on his race. He is Falcon... not "Black Falcon" but just Falcon.
What Biden is doing here, (and what you're doing as well), is characterizing people by their race first and foremost, rather than looking at them as people first. When Biden is picking out a judge, he's not just picking out a judge. He's picking out "Black Judge". He is viewing the judge as "Black Judge". Race (Skin color) is foremost in his mind.
This is problematic, because it has inherent racist tendencies. It categorizes people by race as a primary characteristic. It put their skin color as their primary characteristic (rather than being a person as a primary characteristic). And it creates artificial divides, both within society and within the mind. When "Black Judge" makes a decision, Biden doesn't think "This is what a highly qualified judge is saying, but thinks "this is what a black judge is saying".
To have an actual, unified society, labels like "Black Falcon" and "Black Judge" shouldn't be there. It should just be "Falcon" or "Judge". But the Democratic party is clearly going the other way, to a system which characterizes people primarily by race.
"What Biden is doing here, (and what you’re doing as well), is characterizing people by their race first and foremost, rather than looking at them as people first. When Biden is picking out a judge, he’s not just picking out a judge. He’s picking out “Black Judge”. He is viewing the judge as “Black Judge”. Race (Skin color) is foremost in his mind. "
I'm not sure you can go so far as to declare this as Biden's intent, unless there is an official statement?
It appears that "characteristic other than being a judge" is what is most important, given the nominations. But, it is just as likely that they are picked based on their ideology, which just happens to closely parallel other characteristics. It appears that "she" is at least as important as "melanin".
"It appears that “she” is at least as important as “melanin”."
That hardly makes it any better.
"I’m not sure you can go so far as to declare this as Biden’s intent, unless there is an official statement?"
Female is obviously a characteristic. Sometimes Biden is looking at "woman judge" instead of "Black Judge". But sometimes...statistics break things down in a more clear manner.
According to the most recent ABA survey, 63% of Lawyers were male, and 37% were female. 86% were white, 14% were non-white. So, 54% "White Male" and "46%" other (Minority or female). And for the sake of argument, assume that judge nominations will be lawyers.
But out of Biden's first 11 nominations, you had not a single white male... What are the statistical chances of that?
Or, let's put it a different way. If you had a jury pool with 22 people...11 African American Females, and 11 people of other assorted backgrounds. And ZERO of the African American Females were chosen. Would there be a problem?
"According to the most recent ABA survey, 63% of Lawyers were male, and 37% were female. 86% were white, 14% were non-white."
The untold aspect of the "men earn more than women" is that men work more hours per week than women. I'd like to see the ABA do a very different survey --- one by demographic group of how many hours each works per week.
I'm not saying where, and I'm definitely not talking about "rainmaking" -- instead I am talking about grunt-work "lawyering", be it at a white shoe firm, as a public defender, or as one of the really annoying leftist purporting to act in the public interest. I personally know lawyers who work maybe seven hours a week and lawyers who work seventy -- and while the dynamics are different, the same principle applies to the public sector, both in terms of government service and service on the bench.
With exceptions, of people of appointing age (i.e. over 50), it's usually the White males who are *still* putting in the 60-70 hour workweeks. And they are not doing it because they have to -- either because they need the money or because they are so incompetent that it takes them 60-70 hours to do what someone else could do in 30 -- they're doing it because they love it. (They willingly teach as adjuncts while losing money doing it because they enjoy it.)
As to women, there are three ways to take maternity leave -- there are those who still put in a full day, doing legal work during the 4AM feeding, and those who don't. As well as those who are so interested in the law that they don't have a social life, let alone children, and hence don't take maternity leave at all.
And then as to the 63% male, haven't women been the majority of law students for the past 30 years? Hence one must inquire as to the demographics of the attrition -- those who no longer practice and who may not even keep their licenses current. (Not to mention those who never took the bar exam, or perhaps never passed it.)
I know women in both categories in academia (i.e. professors and administrators), I don't know any similarly situated men.
My point: I strongly suspect that if one reviewed the legal cadre objectively in terms of "judge material" -- i.e. over age 50, cumulative hours spent lawyering, and hours spent lawyering recently, we'd find a pool that is even more White and more male than the lawyer demographic in general.
And we evaluate commercial pilots in such a manner -- how many total flight hours do you have, how many hours in this model, and how many hours recently.
"When Biden is picking out a judge, he’s not just picking out a judge. He’s picking out “Black Judge”. He is viewing the judge as “Black Judge”. Race (Skin color) is foremost in his mind."
Is that what Biden is doing, or is that what you are doing? From what I see from this very brief summary, the candidates appear to have appropriate experience and training. They certainly aren't Brett Talley. It seems the only people reducing them to their race and gender and ignoring their qualifications are those complaining that they aren't white men.
Did their race or gender tip the scales their way in a contest between two equally qualified candidates? Probably. But for hundreds of years the scales tipped the other way, that is if minorities could be given the opportunity to develop into an equally qualified candidate to begin with. Generations of families grew up with the benefits of those previously tipped scales. Now, decision-makers like Biden can either choose to perpetuate that scale-tipping to the group that has benefited most from it throughout our history, or to give others an opportunity to enjoy the benefits. Something needs to break the tie. He is choosing the to give the benefit to the group that has historically been denied it, but since the candidates are all otherwise appropriately qualified, I don't see how you can say that race and gender were the ONLY qualifications he looked for. You're only reducing someone to the "Black Judge" if you've disregarded all the other qualifications they have. And in that case, who is the one who really only has race foremost in their mind?
"Did their race or gender tip the scales their way in a contest between two equally qualified candidates?
I think the fact that Josh Blackman has only heard of 9% of them speaks volumes as to how the are *not* equally qualified...
What you are describing is literal textbook racial and gender discrimination.
Given two equally qualified candidates, you would choose one candidate, consistently, always, based on the color of their skin. If you have 10 black guys and 10 white guys up for 10 positions, and they are all equally qualified, in each and every case, you would choose the black guy, BECAUSE HE IS BLACK. Not based on individual circumstances, upbringing, any personal discrimination the person may have faced. But based purely on the color of their skin. Literal, textbook racial discrimination. Same deal with women. And...it is wrong.
Perhaps the worst, most insidious thing you are doing here? You've set up a situation where if there are equally qualified people of both races, the black guy always wins. Logically, in order to win, the white guy MUST be better qualified. The logical conclusion here, given a mixture of white and black judges, the white judges are better, because they had to be better in order to get the position in the first place. Otherwise a black guy would've gotten the position. And by setting up this situation, you create a situation where the "racists" are literally accurate. And that's perhaps the biggest crime of your racial discrimination.
Who says it wasn't based on individual circumstances, upbringing, or personal discrimination the person may have faced? All of those factors could be used as a proxy for race or gender, yet if you are just looking at a list like this and only concerned about race then it looks like it's just based on skin color. Without knowing the details it's hard to know. Either way though, I admitted race was probably a factor. My point is that race has always been a factor, racial discrimination is part of our history, some decision-makers do value attempting to correct the effects of that history, and the result is the white guy might not get the job at the highest level anymore.
You might be right that it's setting up a system where the white guy must be better qualified, but that's the reality minorities already grow up in and historically have experienced. That's why 75% of the judiciary is white and 67% is male. Asians are facing the same problem now in higher education. Someone is always getting screwed, but saying it's not fair and wrong now is just acknowledging it hasn't been fair and it's been wrong for the past several centuries. Just ignoring that history though isn't correcting anything. It's stealing from others, acknowledging stealing is wrong and maybe apologizing for stealing in the past, but then just keeping everything you stole instead of trying to correct it.
And by the way, let's not pretend racial discrimination against minorities doesn't happen all the time still today. Studies show minorities who "whiten" their resumes, including their names and experience, get more job callbacks and interviews even today. These articles about federal judges are about some of the most senior positions in their profession, but what we don't see are what these people needed to do to get their foot in the door to begin with. What did they have to do to get their first job? What was the pay disparity as they tried to raise their families? How were they treated by clients and colleagues? Were they the first on the firing block when their employer is making cutbacks? Black workers have been disproportionately let go during COVID layoffs, and historically are more likely to lose their jobs in times of economic downturns. Minority applicants for credit are denied loans for homes or businesses at higher rates than white applicants. These things have ripple effects across people's lives and across generations, and these judges or their parents or grandparents likely experienced them at one point or another. Yet you aren't pointing out how unfair that is.
Anyway, long-winded way of saying, yes, race was probably a factor, but race has always been a factor and probably will for the rest of our lifetimes and more. Let's not pretend it doesn't, on the whole, work against the minority and to the benefit of the white male, though usually in less visible ways. It's hypocritical to cry about it now at the highest levels but ignore it at the lower levels, and to cry about it's long-term effects into the future while ignoring the long-term effects of its history. As a white man myself, I don't have much sympathy for that kind of hypocrisy.
"Who says it wasn’t based on individual circumstances, upbringing, or personal discrimination the person may have faced? "
-You did.
" All of those factors could be used as a proxy for race or gender, "
-Then use those factors. Don't use proxies.
"Either way though, I admitted race was probably a factor.
-Yup. See point one.
"racial discrimination is part of our history,"
-But it doesn't have to be part of our FUTURE. But your policies are making it so it needs to be.
"These things have ripple effects across people’s lives and across generations, and these judges or their parents or grandparents likely experienced them at one point or another. "
-Lack of evidence to support this as a causative effect.
"Anyway, long-winded way of saying, yes, race was probably a factor, but race has always been a factor and probably will for the rest of our lifetimes and more. "
-Only because people like you are MAKING it a factor. Your very policies and thought processes continue the historic racism.
So anything but colorblind is racism.
Except you noticed the colors of those judges yourself.
And declared Biden was discriminating against whites.
So maybe heal thyself.
Did like that scene in BFaWS, though if you think the show is advocating for colorblindness, you may want to check out the scene *right agter* that one.
"Except you noticed the colors of those judges yourself.
And declared Biden was discriminating against whites"
Biden said that he was going to. I merely checked to see if he did.
Technically speaking, you pointed it out Sarcastro. Not me.
I asked a question.
You asserted "that Biden, a white guy, is discriminating against guys and whites."
I followed up, and it looked accurate from the judge choices.
Ed pointed it out. You agreed with him.
I don't see why it should matter to you, if either of you practiced what you preach.
But you clearly do not, and care deeply about race. But more about whites.
"Ed pointed it out. You agreed with him"
Did I? Really? No, I did not. Here's what I actually said.
"Because we supposedly live in an era where discrimination based on race and sex doesn’t exist anymore.
But if it DOES exist, but just pointed in a different direction, well…"
That is not agreement, by any rational context. It's hard with you, the word "rational", I know.
But if YOU deliberately point out race (Because race is EVERYTHING to you....because you have race issues), and THEN I look at what's actually going on.
That's very different. So....perhaps you should look in a mirror at your own race issues...
He asked a question that was not colorblind. You answered in a way that was also not colorblind, in the same breath as you complained about the left not being colorblind.
You need to have a discussion with yourself, I think.
"So anything but colorblind is racism."
Almost by definition.
And there's plenty of racism. A high school student was caught saying horribly racist things in class, but fortunate his teacher was there to intervene.
By your definition, your comments are pretty racist then.
"By your definition, your comments are pretty racist then."
Um, no.
Your comments aren't colorblind. You're unhappy with Biden's picks based on a racial criterion.
By your own pinched definition, sounds super racist, dude.
Or, maybe, your definition proves way too much.
I suppose that he's racially discriminating could be labeled a "racial criterion".
It's FaWS!!!! You missed the point of the scene!
Haha.
Guess I did!
"You are arguing that Biden, a white guy, is discriminating against guys and whites. By you(sic.) and Ed’s thesis, is he not betraying his own people?
No. I think he is a freaking hypocrite.
The attitude of schmucks like Biden is "I've already got mine" -- have you ever noticed how those who champion Affirmative Retribution know that they won't be harmed by it?
If Biden truly believed in this, he'd resign the Presidency so as to give it to a Black female. Notice how he was willing to deny qualified White males consideration for the VeeP nomination -- but *not* willing to step aside and endorse one for the Presidential nomination. It's only when someone else is getting harmed that he's OK with what *is* discrimination.
I think that Biden is a traitor to any scintilla of personal integrity (but then he's Biden) -- I'd like to see these White leftists (they are *not* "liberal") actually have to "walk the walk" on the talk they champion...
Sure sounds like you think he's a race traitor to me, but don't want to use the term.
And you'd think by now you'd be disabused of your cartoonish understanding of affirmative action. But of course you haven't.
Hint: AA is not about giving jobs only to blacks. It's not about retribution, or redistribution.
The Presidency has an optimization job criterion - whoever gets the most votes.
"Sure sounds like you think he’s a race traitor to me..."
Are black people who oppose preferential treatment race traitors, Sarcastro?
It sounds like you're the one thinking in those terms, since you and your political allies view people primarily in terms of race and not as individuals.
Indeed it does.
See, the real truth here, is Sarcastro is "racist". He's the one yelling "No, really, I have black friends, so I can't be racist!" Because he sees people as their skin color first, and person second. He bravely voted for Obama BECAUSE he was black. And that's part of the problem.
Again, I think Biden is a hypocrite -- a traitor to the principles he purports to believe.
Much like "blind grading", I'd do "blind selecting" and appoint Judges Alpha, Bravo, Charlie...
BTW: "race traitor" is dogwhistle and offensive.
I don't think so, but I'm not into the black grievance OR white grievance game. AA is just a policy I like.
Y'all are the ones caterwauling about this as a great anti-white injustice.
AL, don't make shit up about what I think or did.
"I’m not into the black grievance... game."
"AA is just a policy I like."
Hard to be consistent in two adjoining sentences I realize. But try.
"I don’t think so, but I’m not into the black grievance OR white grievance game."
Well, you're the only one here throwing around the concept of "race traitor", so it sounds like you're pretty big into some sort of grievance game.
I'm throwing it around because Ed and AL's logic seems to indicate that, TiP.
Holding people to the implications of their argument doesn't mean you endorse said implications.
It was posed as a question and includes a question mark in its proper location at the end of the sentence. So how is it a fake question? In fact, what *is* a fake question? A statement?
That would be unkind.
It assumes he is aware of his race.
It assumes he is aware that race matters now.
It assumes he is aware of who has been nominated in his name.
Using a conspiracy theory to dodge the implications of your argument is not really as clever as you think.
The hallmark of a conspiracy, in the terms you're using, is that it can't be falsified by providing more evidence. But if Biden is competent, he can dispel questions about his competence by making more public appearances.
If fact, when he appeared on the debate, such questions receded somewhat. But now that his making relatively few public appearances again, and appearing unable to handle them, the questions are back.
IMO it really just gave the true believers something to believe. He basically disappeared from the public space for weeks prior, just as he did with his play-pretty press conference last week. It's absolutely astounding that "can halfway hold it together for an hour or so after resting/preparing for weeks" is taken as proof of general fitness.
He was very much in public, he just didn't do press conferences.
The idea that there is a massive coverup of Biden secretly being unfit for office is a conspiracy theory. Such coverups are not viable for any length of time - too many people are involved.
Fascinating theory as always, Sarc. Maybe we can discuss it over the SOTU address.
Neato new goalposts, Brian.
Actually perfectly consistent with my original post. Feel free to reread it.
Debate wasn't enough for you.
Press conference wasn't enough for you.
But SOTU. THAT will certainly set your mind at ease.
Yeah, not buying it.
Certainly I didn't say it finally showing up someday (and in some form that I'm sure you'll describe as perfectly conventional) would "set my mind at ease."
Its prolonged absence continues the pattern I noted.
Pretty simple for those not trying to make it complicated.
"Such coverups are not viable for any length of time – too many people are involved."
Of course not. This one isn't particularly viable either.
A conspiracy theory you believe is still a conspiracy theory.
How many press conferences and debates will it take? Y'all just say he was on some drug or whatever.
Nothing receded after the debate. Y'all have your dumbass narrative, and you will never let go.
"How many press conferences and debates will it take? "
It depend on how they go. So far from what I've seen it looks iffy.
Keep it hazy, that's the key to never being disabused of your scenario.
Do you think they were covering for Reagan?
'The hallmark of a conspiracy, in the terms you’re using, is that it can’t be falsified'
The hallmark of right wing conspiracy theories is that they cannot be disproven. Ever. By anything.
MAGA World says Biden's lost it. Republican senators disagree.
Why is your statement any different than, “Apparently everybody but White Males need not apply,” which was the standard for most of our nation’s history?
Because two wrongs don't make a right.
There is another way of looking at it. Having a diverse bench is a positive value in and of itself because minorities and women bring a perspective that white males don't have. `You want a wide diversity of life experiences and perspectives, which you're not going to get without including women and minorities. So, this is a case in which minority status actually is job related.
So the NBA, whose players are seen by many young people as heroes, should be required to have 80% White players?
Only if life experience is relevant to being a good basketball player. It is relevant to being a good judge.
Life experience should not be relevant to judicial decision making.
Life experience is something that LEGISLATORS should have and use when they are WRITING the laws -- judges are supposed to enforce them. Not write them...
But life experience informs how judges view the world, which can't help but inform their decision making. You're basically asking judges not to be human.
Ideally, yeah. We're asking them to be impartial, rather than trying to curate their partiality.
White male "lived experience" discriminates against blacks.
Black female "lived experience" discriminates against whom then?
Neither experience discriminates against anyone; it's simply that having as many different perspectives as you can on the bench is a good thing. Until relatively recently, the trajectory by which one got to the federal bench ensured that you had only had positive experiences with law enforcement, you'd never been in any real trouble, and "the system" had generally worked out for you. Maybe it's not such a bad thing to have judges who understand that the police aren't always the good guys, that the system sometimes doesn't work, and that just because a prosecutor says something doesn't mean it's the truth.
"you had only had positive experiences with law enforcement, you’d never been in any real trouble, and “the system” had generally worked out for you."
That likely applies to every one of these nominees.
Do you think any of these have criminal records or have not hugely bennefitted from the "system"?
Even without any criminal convictions, I'll bet the ones of color have had negative experiences, or have family member who have had negative experiences, with the police and with prosecutors. I'll bet the women have experienced sexism, and all of them know what it's like to live under a legal system that was written with white males in mind.
At this point, I'm tempted to turn it around and ask why the hostility to the idea of a diverse bench? Why is a diverse bench a bad thing?
Have you considered that maybe basketball is different from jurisprudence?
Have you considered that there's always an excuse?
At least, you seem to always be willing to make excuses.
Do you think in fact basketball and judging are the same, and I'm just making an excuse?
Sure, if you assume you are correct, I'm making excuses. But of course I think I'm correct.
But I have the humility to allow that you believe what you say, and are doing more than making excuses.
If affirmative action is good for the courts, it should be good for every human endeavor.
Including basketball.
Right, because all human endeavors are exactly the same, so what works for one will work for the rest of them too. Bob, which logical fallacy is that?
"Why is your statement any different than, “Apparently everybody but White Males need not apply,” which was the standard for most of our nation’s history?"
Because (a) its retribution and nothing else and (b) a specific generation of White males, now in their 40's & 50's, have been made to pay for sins they never committed, while those who actually committed them were permitted to continue onward unmolested.
It's only the Gen X that has suffered from this, starting with K-12 retribution in the 1970s & 1980s and extending up through this today. Gen X, the forgotten generation between the Boomers & Millennials, the minority that it is acceptable to discriminate against.
But then, I thought that discriminating against minorities was wrong...
It's not retribution, it's restorative. You're arguing that equality for black men is a punishment for white men and it's stupid.
Requiring the White man to be twice as good is racism, not equality.
And what you fail to understand is that it has created an army of Betty Fredans -- White men who are underemployed and quite unhappy. Don't forget what led to the National Socialist movement in Germany, nor that the same cadre of men currently exist here in the US.
Ed has so many armies, each based on a different policy he doesn't like that he's sure is about to move the imaginary teeming millions of Americans he speaks for to violent action.
What kind of man has a view wherein the people he agrees with will turn his country into Nazi Germany? Certainly not one interested in ideas.
There is not a derth of white men in the Federal judiciary, and of course blue collar jobs are not known for their strong affirmative action policies.
Being female or black is not the problem. Judging is a no talent activity that can be done by anyone. The problem is they are Ivy indoctrinated America hating traitors.
The Justices of the Supreme Court must all be replaced by algorithms written and owned by the Congress. When it makes mistakes, Congress should be made to pay out of personal assets in torts. These parasites can carry insurance as they force productive people to do.
Why do you assume they weren't the best candidates?
Natural response to racist preferences and affirmative action....
Or it's a natural response from a bigot who thinks non-whites and women can only be selected because of criteria excluding their skill sets.
Per above, about 54% of potential judges are white males.
None of the 11 nominees have been.
The odds of that happening at random are 0.02%. Therefore we can say with a high degree of statistical confidence that Biden is not hiring on merit, but is instead discriminating on the basis of race and sex.
And doubtless "Dr." Ed would have posted a similar carp if all 11 nominated had been white men. Yeah, this is all just concern about merit and qualifications …
All men would have been about 5-6 times more likely, actually. Which is still pretty darned unlikely, though.
You're free to think Dr. Ed doesn't actually care about merit, but the case that Biden is engaged in racial and sexual discrimination in hiring is iron clad.
If you have 100 judges that can do the job really well, you get to look at other stuff. Like age, for instance. Or representation.
This is not an optimization process, even if that makes the numbers all nice and neat for your statistical proof of anti-white discrimination.
"If you have 100 judges that can do the job really well, you get to look at other stuff. Like age, for instance. Or representation."
Or race. Or sex. I'm saying he's obviously discriminating on the basis of race and sex, and you're not actually denying it, you're just making excuses for it.
Discrimination here assumes some ordinality I don't think you can assume.
"Denial ain't just a river in Egypt."
You generally make your case when you have one to make.
You didn't do so here.
Your ignoring the case doesn't make it go away.
The odds of none of his nominees being white males, unless he was deliberately discriminating against white males, are a bit worse than one in five thousand. People have been convicted of murder with less evidence.
The odds
Back to the easily discernable rankings randomly distributed among the judges, eh?
"Back to the easily discernable rankings randomly distributed among the judges, eh?"
So, you don't like being on the receiving end of disparate impact, do you?
"If you have 100 judges that can do the job really well, you get to look at other stuff. Like age, for instance. Or representation."
Let's really get into this.
Let's say you have 100 judges who can do the job really well. And there are 11 openings. 54 of those judges are White Males. 46 are minorities and/or females.
Do you specifically, in each and every of those 11 cases, pick the minorities and/or females? Is doing so racial and/or gender discrimination? Why or why not?
Once merit selection is completed, other criteria like diversity and inclusion are fine - in fact needed - as a factor when making a decision. Diversity and inclusion is a permissible factor, and not actually discrimination.
How would you answer the question - is in fact the only fair way to make final downselect to do so randomly? Do you think favoring younger judges is age discrimination?
Bottom line - the judiciary still offers plenty of opportunities to whites. The fact that it offers less than it did a few decades ago does not have me worried.
I'm going to say this very deliberately.
What you propose is racial discrimination. You are picking people BECAUSE of their skin color. And it is wrong. And it is deeply, at its core, racist.
No, it's not. Or it is only by your idiosyncratic definition.
Remember, you're not picking people solely by their skin color, there was a merit downselect as well in your hypo.
Sarcastro,
Once again, what you propose is racial discrimination. Between two otherwise equal candidates, picking the black candidate each and every time, is undoubtedly racial discrimination, and deeply racist.
Once again, you're wrong about what racial discrimination is. And you're wrong in a way that's been clearly wrong for decades now.
"Once again, you’re wrong about what racial discrimination is. And you’re wrong in a way that’s been clearly wrong for decades now."
You might not like it, you might be desperate for it to not be true, but it remains: "Racial discrimination" means nothing more than discriminating (treating differently) on the basis of race.
That's all it means, that is what it has always meant, that is what it WILL always mean. No matter how much you desperately want to change the definitions of words so that treating people differently based on their race won't be "racial discrimination".
You want racial discrimination. You think racial discrimination is right and good, so long as it's racial discrimination you approve of. Every member of the KKK agrees with you about that.
Duh, of course race and sex factored into Biden's decisions. But it's the whining from the commentariat that the absence of white men is an affront to Jesus Christ and the Enlightenment that rolls the eyes, when y'all wouldn't even notice if it were all white men (maybe throw in a white woman for token diversity). It's about what raises the alarms that galls. If y'all are so principled, so merit-oriented, show me the evidence of you being alarmed by past slates of nominations that are all white men. Otherwise, yeah, "Dr" Ed and the others are a bunch of bigots who think positions of power should be the domain of white men.
"Duh, of course race and sex factored into Biden’s decisions"
Let's be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR here. Biden's decision included race and sex as a factor, to the point that not a single WHITE MALE person was chosen.
Does that represent racial discrimination?
If instead of the words "White Male", "Black Female" were used, would it be racial discrimination then?
What EXACTLY would differentiate the two?
The issue is this - you're using colorblidness as both a sword and a shield - attacking liberals for not being colorblind, but basing it on a very not colorblind white grievance.
Liberals are fine with making racial distinctions, so there is no hypocrisy or double standard there. But you? You're soaking in it.
"Liberals are fine with making racial distinctions"
Let's really focus in on that statement Sarcastro.
Why, how, and what are the results of liberals making "racial distinctions"?
Is it OK for liberals to, given two equally qualified candidates for a position, pick the black candidate each and every time, because they are black?
Or is that "racial discrimination"?
No, it's not discrimination. We've had Supreme Court decisions aplenty saying that.
"Is it OK for liberals to, given two equally qualified candidates for a position, pick the black candidate each and every time, because they are black?
Or is that “racial discrimination”?"
Sarcastro: "No, it’s not discrimination. We’ve had Supreme Court decisions aplenty saying that.
I call bullshit. Cite the SCOTUS decisions saying that.
The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race in any program receiving federal financial assistance.
And yet, affirmative action has been affirmed as legal many times.
Therefore affirmative action is not discrimination based on race.
No, therefor the courts have been corrupted into approving racial discrimination, if it's the 'right's sort.
To be clear, for decades, many decades, the courts approved of racial segregation and Jim Crow. Did that approval mean racial segregation and Jim Crow weren't racial discrimination?
"Racial discrimination" is a simple concept: Confronted with two people, you treat them differently based on their race. That's all it means.
You, sir, are a racist. I understand that you don't want to accept the evil you've embraced, but that's the brute truth. You're a racist.
I say again: The fact that Josh Blackman has only heard of 9% of them speaks volumes -- and yes, I'd be concerned if Blackman had only heard of one of eleven White males nominated to the Federal bench.
Particularly as three of these nominations are to a circuit court of appeals where you'd like to have known entities being appointed...
Your metric is borked.
Something about Blackman makes me think he may not hobnob much in nonconservative judicial circles.
You honestly think he doesn't know of judges and lawyers with whom he vehemently disagrees?
Don't you???
Of course he doesn't - no one knows of all judges and lawyers.
But he knows many more of those in his circle than without it.
His not knowing some liberals up for judgeships is not an indicator those people are not qualified.
The fact that they are not qualified is enough to justify the statement they are not qualified.
You shouldn't let your circular logic waive out in the open like that, Jimmy. It's unseemly.
Brett, this assumes a ranked list of judges.
That's not a thing though.
Being known to a scholar who pursues the nuances of judicial appointments is different from a ranked list of judges.
The other thing with totally unknown nominees is that one or more may have a skeleton or two tucked away somewhere. Twatter and Farcebook censorship won't prevent one of the right's investigatory journalists from finding & forwarding something to any one of a half dozen Senators.
In other words, there may be plenty of judges who can do the job.
So then why do you care if a bunch of them are white or not?
"In other words, there may be plenty of judges who can do the job.
So then why do you care if a bunch of them are white or not?"
Because some can do the job better than others, and if we want the best candidates, we should select the best candidates and not choose candidates by skin color.
If the best candidates happen to be the darkest ones, fine, but there's no evidence that these candidates were selected based on ability.
Because some can do the job better than others
Not so you can tell before they're in the seat.
If you think these candidates are below par, find some indicator of such.
there’s no evidence that these candidates were selected based on ability.
Burden's on you for that one, chief.
This assumes a precision in an ability to predict future job performance that is completely detached from reality.
In almost any hiring process, you're likely to end up with some pool of candidates that are similarly qualified for the job. Then you either apply some arbitrary filter ("culture fit", "fun to hang out with", "I liked their shoes") that you know doesn't have anything to do with actual job performance, or you trick yourself into thinking that you can predict job performance on very limited data despite tons of evidence to the contrary. Biden seems to be engage in the former approach, and choosing on factors that he and other people are actually relevant to the way that judges engage in their jobs--lived experience matters in how people evaluate situations, including whether we think the world is somehow magically fair and color/gender-blind already.
'Because some can do the job better than others, and if we want the best candidates'
You stupid fuckers voted for Donald J Trump, so , no, you do not want the 'best' candidate, not for this, not for anything.
No, it doesn't assume a ranked list. I'm simply pointing out that the actual selections are, in aggregate, remarkably unlikely unless the chief selection criteria are race and sex.
Or are you claiming that some figure of merit (That isn't simply not being a white male...) very strongly correlates with not being a white male?
You can claim that racial and sexual discrimination is an evil that has to be fought.
Or you can practice it.
Try to do both, and people inevitably notice that you're at best a hypocrite.
Your math only works if there is a ranking of judges randomly distributed based on race.
That's actually pretty silly, if you think about it.
I'm claiming that above a certain threshold, there is no operative indicia of merit.
If, at that point, you want to argue that among effectively equal candidates you should flip a coin rathe than choose a minority, go ahead. But I don't think you'll bring many along with you. Except for around here, of course.
"I’m claiming that above a certain threshold, there is no operative indicia of merit."
"effectively equal candidates" is not a thing. You math assumes that there's not difference in the candidates other than skin color, which is almost certainly incorrect.
Above a certain threshold, there is a way to tell a priori how two different candidates will do.
"Above a certain threshold, there is [no] way to tell a priori how two different candidates will do."
This is either a tautology or an unsupported assertion. Which is it?
What? No, it's just a normal assertion.
You can get a sense of how someone will do at a job before they do it - that's the threshold.
But beyond that it's far from easy to tell how people will do in a job before they do it. Hence the large group above the threshold being effectively equal in merit.
Sarcastro, it really does not matter one bit whether, above a certain level of qualification, nominees are interchangeable in terms of competence.
Suppose it's true. Biden has to be picking the nominees on SOME basis. What basis is Biden using to pick among the supposedly equally competent choices?
Race and sex. Obviously so.
As I said, you can claim racism and sexism are evils that need to be eradicated. Or you can practice racism and sexism.
But don't do both and expect people to not notice the hypocrisy.
These candidates were not picked solely on the basis of race or sex.
Are you arguing the only true way to pick between competent candidates is to flip a coin? Because what is the alternative?
"Hence the large group above the threshold being effectively equal in merit."
If you're claiming that that's true in a specific case, you have to support your claim. And it would probably be difficult to support.
I don't think I've seen a group of high-level judges that are "effectively equal" in merit.
If, for example, somebody had to pick a justice from SCOTUS for some purpose, I doubt anybody would say, "Eh, they're effectively equal. Just pick Thomas, it'd be good to have a black guy."
I'm arguing the lack of an easily discernable ranking of merit true in the general case of picking people for jobs, with exceptions (e.g. basketball).
Do you disagree?
"As I said, you can claim racism and sexism are evils that need to be eradicated. Or you can practice racism and sexism."
It's more complicated than this, for two reasons.
First, as any supporter of the death penalty or really any form of state-sanctioned punishment can tell you, sometimes it's okay to engage in some amount of behavior that is generally bad in order to address some previous wrong. So it seems like totally fair game to think that racism or sexism are generally bad, but endorse their use to correct previous racism or sexism.
Second, to a certain extent race and sex are either heuristics for or perhaps just highly correlated with different sorts of life experiences. Even though I disagree with her ideologically, to me, one of the best things about ACB's elevation to the Supreme Court is that she got her law degree from Notre Dame vs. the usual suspects. Having judges that have empathy and experience for ways of life that aren't already highly overrepresented in the courts is important, and while that's by no means limited to sex and race, the experiences of women and people of color are sufficiently different from white dudes that it's helpful to include them as part of the "wisdom of the crowds" in the judiciary. That's not the only sort of diversity we should look for--diversity in socioeconomic background, in types of pre-judiciary experience, etc. all matter as well. But caring about diverse life experiences as a factor in thinking about how to populate a group of people making important decisions is not the same in either intent or outcome as traditional forms of racism and sexism that seek to exclude people purely based on how they look.
It's always 'complicated' when people want to commit an evil.
"It’s always ‘complicated’ when people want to commit an evil."
Indeed. And yet sometimes society still gets together and agrees its the right course of action (as with prisons or wars). Cheap soundbites that don't engage in the substance of the discussion don't really help the dialogue, though.
"Try to do both, and people inevitably notice that you’re at best a hypocrite."
Particularly with an "I've already got mine" attitude.
The Baby Boomers championed Affirmative Retribution knowing that it would never affect them.
Technically, I'm a Baby Boomer, and I've always found it objectionable.
I'm very much not, and have come around on it.
Boomers care about their kids. Your idea is dumb.
Boomer's kids are Millennials, not Gen Xers.
Sarcastro's new move is called the Diversity Twerk where he tries to dance around the facts to make discrimination look just fine when it favors his political persuasion. It nicely complements his other move - The Coleman - where he gaslights people repeatedly in the comment threads.
Their kids are both.
And you don't thin AA applies to millenials?
I’m simply pointing out that the actual selections are, in aggregate, remarkably unlikely unless the chief selection criteria are race and sex.
Not entirely. The courts are currently disproportionately male. If we assume male and female lawyers are equally qualified to serve as judges, then well-qualified women have been passed over in favor of less well-qualified men.
That means the pool of possible male judicial appointees is much weaker than the pool of possible female appointees. The women are more qualified than the men, not by virtue of biology but by virtue of the fact that the male pool has been picked over, while the female pool has been if not totally neglected, at least not paid enough attention.
In that circumstance we shouldn't be surprised to see new nominees be disproportionately female.
"Per above, about 54% of potential judges are white males. None of the 11 nominees have been. The odds of that happening at random are 0.02%. Therefore we can say with a high degree of statistical confidence that Biden is not hiring on merit, but is instead discriminating on the basis of race and sex."
What are the odds with respect to the maleness and Whiteness of the Volokh Conspiracy's lineup? In the modern legal academy?
Bigots gonna bigot. But they are also fading in America, as the culture war continues to improve America against the wishes and efforts of Republicans and conservatives.
Is this racial or other discrimination? Given the political climate, the politics around judicial appointments, and the numbers, I would say the evidence weighs extremely heavily to "yes" here. Although the sample size is smaller here, I've done plenty of consulting where you break down race/sex numbers to see if there is any indicators of indirect discrimination. If i was looking at an analysis for a private company that hired 100 people and all were white that would be a big red flag. Same if there was a high percentage of any particular protected class. With 11, it is too small of sample to pull anything definitive, but the fact that no white man is in it is certainly telling and suspicious.
Is it illegal if it did happen? No. These are political appointments.
Is it immoral/unethical? Not to a liberal who thinks (the new buzz phrase) "equity" demands these decisions use such characteristics as a primary driver. To our system of laws and common decency though yes it is very concerning.
It is hard to justify pushing "anti-racism" when you are engaging in common racism to "fix" the system. What do you think a young white man thinks when he gets passed up for a job or sees the effective equivalent of "no white men need apply" in nice diversity language? I think we all know the answer...
Run the numbers, Jimmy. It's a 1 in 5000 chance. People get put in the greybar hotel at much smaller odds they're guilty.
Agreed, politicians have exempted themselves from anti-discrimination laws, so it isn't illegal for Biden to adopt a "No white males need apply" policy.
Nobody is saying it's illegal, just that it's racist.
Best part is you think equity is a new buzz phrase.
I guess I'm not up and up on lefty vocab....and that is necessarily a bad thing...
With respect to Ms. Cunningham and the impending Federal Circuit nomination, at least this Administration is starting off by naming a patent practitioner to that Court. While the CAFC's jurisdiction is broader than just patent matters, of seven Obama Administration appointees, only two seem to have been patent practitioners before joining that court. The previous pattern had been for north of half of the CAFC to be patent practitioners, so this nomination is a welcome change from the prior dilution of patent experience on that court.
Another self evident lawyer idiocy. The purpose is to promote innovation for the public good. Hey, lawyer dumbass, which would promote more innovation, a term of 20 years or of 5 years? True, screws in Elizabethan times improved over 20 years. But the pace has changed.
Patents force people to reveal their design for download by the Chinese adversary. Thanks lawyer dumbass for helping the enemy steal all our intellectual property.
Add patents to the list of devastating lawyer dumbass failures and awful damage to our nation.
As surprised as I am to say it, there’s actually a smidgen of truth in that first paragraph.
I'm waiting to see what becomes of the Mickey Mouse copyright law. I believe that Steamboat Willie (the first Mickey Mouse) is scheduled to finally go into the public domain in the near future (2022?) and somehow, somehow, I don't think that it will...
January 1st, 2024.
I think you're probably right about that.
And if it was just Steamboat WIllie, I'd hardly care. The damage would be trivial. It's all the other stuff that got extended, too, just to pretend it wasn't a handout to Disney, that's caused the real damage. Generations of works vanishing because nobody who has the should have expired copyright cares to publish them.
We should be drowning in omnibus editions of early to mid 20th century works at this point, and all that stuff is just vanishing away, instead.
I'm not putting my tin foil hat on yet, but if you wanted to destroy a culture, preventing grandparents from giving their grandchildren the books they enjoyed is a damn good way to do it.
And it's not just books -- the movies and music of those years should be public now -- and I think that stuff was of higher quality than what we have now because it had to compete against free public domain stuff the way that the current garbage doesn't.
I basically shared this opinion, but thought that it necessitated that none of the existing copyrights would ever be allowed to expire. So I was shocked when Congress failed to "fix" the problem by extending terms again a couple of years ago. The Great Gatsby fell into the public domain on January 1st!
With Congress divided as it is and this issue on no one's priority list, I think it's pretty unlikely that we'll see further copyright extensions. If they wait until Steamboat Willy is about to fall into the public domain, it will be a lot more conspicuous than if they would have done it in 2019.
True, but they can do it as lame ducks, and not care if it's conspicuous.
I'd say the first paragraph is totally correct (shockingly, but monkeys and Hamlet and all that), but also has nothing to do with who the judges are. Congress sets the duration of patents.
Editorials have called on Biden to appoint judges with experience litigating against the government. I'd like to see somebody with experience fighting patent trolls on the Federal Circuit.
Her representative matters omit parties’ names almost entirely, but it seems like she’s done at least some defense against NPEs. And some litigation on behalf of branded pharma cos. Not all that surprising I guess.
Now why'd ya want to go and ruin a perfectly nice thread by bringing up a specific nominee's qualifications? Takes attention away from some folks pointing out that Biden must be racist for nominating no CIS white males and other folks calling the first group racist for noticing. Fun stuff...
Because we supposedly live in an era where discrimination based on race and sex doesn't exist anymore.
But if it DOES exist, but just pointed in a different direction, well...
Such a great comment he had to post it as a reply AND it’s own post. Maybe Blackman will add it to his post, too?
"Because we supposedly live in an era where discrimination based on race and sex doesn’t exist anymore."
You seemed content during a recent four-year period in which judicial nominees were remarkably male and strikingly White. I ascribe this to your conservative bigotry.
"You never answered the question Rev.
If you personally are making hiring decisions, do you look at a person’s skin color, and make the hiring decision based at least partially on the color of their skin?"
I probably do. Not in the direction of your leaning, likely, though.
So, in other words, you practice racial discrimination.
Wouldn't that make you a racist?
Perhaps so. But who is worse -- the person who recognizes this, like me, or the bigoted conservatives, such as you, who pretend they are not bigots while practicing their old-timey racism, xenophobia, misogyny, and gay-bashing?
Spoiler: Society has decided that I win and you lose. Try to handle it with dignity.
So, you're a self-admitted racist
And your only defense is "Society has decided that I win and you lose"
Right....
I consider race. You consider race.
I am a decent person who is not a White supremacist. You are a right-wing bigot who will be replaced by your betters consequent to losing the American culture war.
Your children likely will choose my preferences, too.
Sucks to be you, clingers.
"I consider race."
-Clearly
"You consider race."
Not like you do. If given the choice between an equally qualified black man and equally qualified white man, I flip a coin. I consider every race equal and they should be treated equally.
"I am a decent person."
-All racists consider themselves "decent people"
"You are a right-wing bigot"
-Incorrect. I treat people equally, no matter their race, gender, or creed. You do not.
"losing the American culture war."
Every major racist society in history has used the justification that they were on the "right side" and they were "just" for discriminating against other races. They all believed they were "winning" the "culture war". Europeans enslaving Africans thought it was their "burden" as a "superior culture". Nazis thought they were a "superior culture" to the Jews. You're using the same logic as these previous oppressive, racist, regimes to justify your own racism. And you defense is "society will think I'm right" in the end...just like they did.
You are a right-wing bigot. Your preferences are doomed to fail in America. That I get to be part of the group that defeats you and your stale, ugly, conservative thinking is a joy.
Carry on, clinger. But only so far as your betters permit.
"Because we supposedly live in an era where discrimination based on race and sex doesn’t exist anymore."
LOL. No one thinks this except white dudes trying to hold onto the benefits of centuries of such discrimination (and who get upset when they get any whiff of how it might feel applied to them).
Does this blog generate bigots, or merely attract and appease them?
Well, which was it for you?
I am not a VC fanboy. Most of the content at this blog, especially recently, is unattractive.
I believe calling a bigot a bigot -- especially in public debates -- is a noble practice, however.
But still no SG! Surely that means Biden/Dems in disarray, don’t it?
And what about Kruger? By process of elimination they’re saving her for Breyer’s seat, right? I feel sort of bad for KBJ, but 50s is probably seen as too old already, plus a “mere” district judge might be considered unworthy for lacking appellate experience.
In fairness to her, Wikipedia reveals a good amount of appellate litigation experience. Just not judging experience AFAICT.
One of two major reasons I favor fixed, limited terms on SCotUS for justices-- guaranteeing fair consideration for nominees in their 60s at the very peak of their wisdom, accomplishment, and influence. There would no longer be an ideological incentive to push nominees in their 40s, of ability not yet fully known.
And by Tuesday evening, McConnell will be complaining about democrats jamming judicial nominations “down our throats” and the evils of partisan judicial appointments.
The simple response is to drag out the committee hearings, and then require cloture votes on every single nominee. Personally, I expect no less than that. After all, turnabout is fair play.
Hilarious. Just like after Dubya it’s as if the last four years never happened...
To the victors go the spoils. And that works on the flip side, too. Be more popular and you’ll have a bigger presence in Congress to make this smoother.
Don't spend four years (actually five) engaged in scorched earth resistance unless you want to see the other side do the same to you.
You lost the House, the senate and the White House, but you’re a “victor”?
No, he's saying a 50-50 Senate and a shrunken majority in the House aren't enough of a victory to get much control. Democrats would have to be more popular to be in a position to easily steamroller the opposition.
Or they would need to diminish the structural amplification of bigoted, backwater voices in America.
Which I expect to occur, relatively soon.
Except their “popularity” isn’t the issue. Gerrymandered states and voter suppression are the only things keeping it close.
Because the Democrats can only win when the dead vote.
"Gerrymandered states and voter suppression are the only things keeping it close."
The clingers won't be able to hold that wavering door much longer. And when the break occurs . . . that will be great!
America's lingering bigots seem bothered by a change from a steady stream of White, male judicial nominees.
Great!
Did someone announce revival of blue slips?
Great question. Blue slips were never discontinued for DCT nominees, so to that extent, no revival is necessary. They were eliminated (by the Rs) for regional Circuit nominees though. According to the linked article further below from last month (Feb.), Ds intend to maintain the current state of things.
So given that all but one of these nominees is for a DCT slot, Prof. B. is mostly right about the lack of any blue slip problems. Technically, he is wrong though, for the CA7 nominee. I say technically because Jackson-Akiwumi's home state appears to be IL, which if correct, wouldn't pose any problems as a practical matter. Maybe Prof. B. is aware of the changes, but his post fails to mention them anywhere, even though he raises the blue slips issue twice—first in the subheading and then in the conclusion. I am quite mortified to see this oversight notwithstanding the vaunted editorial standards for which Prof. B.'s posts are known.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/nation/article/U-S-Senate-judiciary-chair-to-retain-GOP-s-15961370.php
I don't understand the cryptic abbreviations, but "Circuit nominees to CADC, CA7, and CAFC." implies *three* circuit court nominations -- not one.
That’s a fair point. I was focused on regional Circuits, which are the only ones where the blue slip rule originally did and still does apply, so I just ignored the other two. But you’re correct—including CADC and CAFC, there were in fact 3.
To dejargonify, CA = Court of Appeals, so:
CADC = DC Circuit
CA7 = Seventh Circuit
CAFC = Federal Circuit
I guess Republicans should obstruct and draw out the process as much as possible. That must be good behavior, because that's what we saw Democrats do. Even when the individuals nominated were well regarded by all sides, Democrats obstructed and tried to slow their confirmations down.
Let's Kavanaugh them...
That was the attitude Dems took toward Gorsuch, nominated in 2017 to replace Scalia, and it backfired. The key vote on ending SCotUS filibusters was taken when Republicans were united, so everything would be lined up for Kavanaugh in the event-filled weeks just before the 2018 election.
I hope better Americans demonstrate a bit of restraint as conservativism collapses in the culture war . . . but I also will accept the chips however they fall. The clingers have earned no leniency.
All out lawfare is warranted. Every utterance and party behavior from age 7 should be publicly reviewed in any confirmation hearing. Best would be video recordings to play on TV. These are America haters who must be stopped at any cost.
Name a jurisdiction where these people rule that is successful. Money is not everything. Define success any way you wish. Biden is turning our nation into a Dem shithole.
The perfect spot for a piece of shit like yourself so what are you complaining about?
Speaking of all the CAs, I’m a bit surprised not to see anyone for CA1 yet. That’s been pending for ages and nearly as long as the CA7 one for which a nominee was offered in this cohort.
The fact that Josh doesn't know any of these folks is good.
We've seen a run of young nominees under Trump who were hydroponically grown in right-wing incubators. Biden's picks have a broader range of life experience. That's always good in a judge.
Elizabeth Warren?
Nominate her now and you've lost control of the Senate -- but she also won't be a POTUS contender in 2024.
They also haven't nominated a US Attorney, and speculation is on Rachel "Decline to Prosecute" Rollins, currently Suffolk County (i.e. Boston) DA, although her star has dimmed after her far less than stellar response to allegations of Christmas Road Rage and illegal use of emergency lights on her personal vehicle.
(Hint: threatening to fabricate criminal charges against a TV reporter whose camera is running isn't wise -- of course the TV station will run the footage....)
My guess is that Maine Governor Janet Mills, the former ME AG and from a long-term legal family, would also like the CA1 nod, she's up for re-election in 2022 and will be in a tight race if Paul LePage comes back.
Warren & Mills are powerful in their own regards, Rollins is a champion of the progressives because of both her race and political views. And then the wild card is Kimberly Budd, daughter of Wayne Budd and currently chief justice of the Mass SJC. She's Black, female, and a RINO which would make her a trifecta.
My guess with both the USA and CA1 nomination, it's a case of whom he least wants to piss off -- which shows just how tenuous a hold on power Team Bite Me actually has....
Sen. Warren could do more good in the Senate than on a circuit court, in my judgment.
She might be a reasonable selection for one of the new positions on an enlarged Supreme Court, though.
American Constitution Society just sent an invitation for a CLE program that will address the proposal to enlarge the Supreme Court. Most ACS programs -- like most Federalist Society programs -- are worthwhile for anyone interested in a program's topic, and the prospect of Court enlargement seems an area of interest for many. This program is to occur on April 8, I believe.
Court packing ain't gonna happen -- it would be like sodium hypochlorite to the purple states, bleaching the blue right out of them.
And even if it got through, the overwhelming Republican majorities it would create next fall (2022) would mean that every one of these new justices could immediately be impeached under he Pelosi standard of impeachment (we don't like you).
Or we just pack it more. Think the House is unwieldy at 435, wait until you see a 500-member SCOTUS....
Elizabeth Warren is 71 years old. Nobody's appointing her to the bench.
(1) I’m pretty sure that, per statute, this particular CA1 spot has to go to someone based in PR, so that puts Warren and Mills out of the running.
(2) A “woke” USA would be an interesting concept. Of course, DAs are elected while USAs are appointed, so the considerations in play are somewhat different. Historically both Rs and Ds seem to have been pretty conventional in picking folks who are currently in the federal system, AUSAs for the most part. The initial set of Biden picks seems to follow that trend, but who knows, maybe DMass could be a surprise.
Suffolk County is essentially Boston and as such, it's a "rotten borough" -- it's just the people who actually live in Boston, and not the vast majority of the people there, who don't. The very poor and the very woke rich -- no middle class.
With all the progressive money being poured into what once were local races, I'm not so sure these people actually are being elected in the traditional sense of the term. Soros & Co is buying DAs.
A lot has been said about the ethic make up of this group but I was struck by the youth. Relatively speaking. The President is 78, the average age for the House is 57 and 61 for the Senate. Because of lifetime appointments the court system may soon be the youngest branch of the government. It will be interesting to see how this dynamic plays out. How young judges will interpret laws passed by people older than them. It seem logical to have young passing laws and then to have more mature judges, wiser for years, sift through the intricates of the laws. We may the opposite.
Which one of this blog's fans is Kimberly Newman?
Thanks.
Zahid N. Quraishi "According to Law.com, he was born in July 1975, which would make him 44."
No, that would make him 45 now and 46 soon. Apparently math is not a strong point at Law. com
The nut cases on both sides are out today.
To both I say, "what did you expect."
The current gender makeup of Article III judges is 67% male and 33% female. And for several years, about 50% of law students have been female. So it is not surprising that Biden might try to make things more balanced. After all, Trump was intent on increasing the number of members of the Federalist Society in the judiciary. As they say, elections have consequences.