The Tenth Rule of Court Packing Is Play Your Base By Appointing A Well-Balanced Commission With No Actual Mandate

Shortly after Justice Breyer signals he may stick around, and progressive groups demand a new Justice, President Biden appoints reasonable people to the Supreme Court Commission.

|

It has been more than two months since my last post on Court Packing. On January 27, there were reports that President Biden was beginning to staff his Supreme Court commission. At the time, several prominent names were floated, including Jack Bauer, Cristina Rodriguez, Caroline Fredrickson, and Jack Goldsmith. According to Politico, there would be between 9 and 15 members.

Two months later, President Biden has finally released the mission, and membership of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court. I'll get back to the mission later. Let's start with the members. And we have gone way beyond 15 members. I count 36 members. And I will divide them based on how I perceive their place on the political spectrum. These assignments are fairly crude, and I apologize if I have mislabeled anyone.

First, there are twenty-four members who are from my vantage point left of center: Michelle Adams (Cardozo), Kate Andrias (Michigan), Jack Balkin (Yale), Bob Bauer (NYU, Co-Chair), Elise Boddie (Rutgers), Guy-Uriel Charles (Duke), Andrew Manuel Crespo (Harvard), Walter Dellinger (Duke), Justin Driver (Yale), Caroline Fredrickson (Georgetown), Heather Gerken (Yale), Nancy Gertner (Harvard), Bert I. Huang (Columbia), Sherrilyn Ifill (NAACP LDF), Michael Kang (Northwestern), Olatunde Johnson (Columbia), Trevor Morrison (NYU), Richard Pildes (NYU), Cristina Rodriguez (Yale, Co-Chair), Kermit Roosevelt (Penn), Bertrall Ross (Berkeley), David Strauss (Chicago), Laurence Tribe (Harvard), Michael Waldman (NYU).

Second, there are five members who I see as more centrist: Richard H. Fallon (Harvard), Tara Leigh Grove (Alabama), Alison L. LaCroix (Chicago), Margaret H. Lemos (Duke), David F. Levi (Duke).

Third, there are seven members who are right of center–including two of my fellow co-bloggers: William Baude (Chicago), Jack Goldsmith (Harvard), Thomas B. Griffith (D.C. Circuit), Caleb Nelson (UVA), Michael Ramsey (San Diego), Adam White (GMU), Keith Whittington (Princeton).

In short, liberals outnumber non-liberals by about 2-1 ratio. Those numbers are better than I had anticipated. On most law school faculties, liberals outnumber non-liberals by about 50-1. I'll take these odds!

From January to April, the commission has more than doubled in size. As a general matter, the larger the commission, the more difficult it will be to reach a consensus. I can't fathom the sheer amount of work it will take to manage this august group of really smart people. If each member is given five minutes for an opening statement, that process would take three hours! And if each member has five minutes to ask questions of a witness, there goes another three hours! Plus time for public comment and Q&A. Any public meeting with all 36 members would have to take a full day, and likely two.

Moreover, the writing process will be painful. Imagine writing a law review article with 35 co-authors. Now, try writing that article with co-authors who likely disagree on fundamental principles. Will there be majority opinions? Concurrences? Dissents? Plus all of the meeting will be in public. Every question and comment will be carefully scrutinized by advocacy groups on both sides of the aisle. No doubt bloggers and tweeters will attack positions they disagree with in real time, before seeing the final product. Get ready for the trolling, friends. And, by the way, President Biden has asked the group to complete its work within 180 days of the first meeting. Most scholars cannot write a book by themselves in that period of time. (Maybe Cass Sunstein and a few others can). Try writing a book with 35 not-so-likeminded colleagues in less time. I do not envy the members of this commission. Oh, and there is no compensation for service.

Now, onto the mission. Indeed, the narrow mission may mitigate the concerns I've raised so far. President Biden also issued an Executive Order to establish the commission. Section 3 provides:

Sec. 3.  Functions.  (a)  The Commission shall produce a report for the President that includes the following:

(i)    An account of the contemporary commentary and debate about the role and operation of the Supreme Court in our constitutional Asystem and about the functioning of the constitutional process by which the President nominates and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints Justices to the Supreme Court;

This portion should not be too difficult. A summary of the debates about the Court. There are plenty of tweets to cite.

Next, a survey of past proposals for reform:

(ii)   The historical background of other periods in the Nation's history when the Supreme Court's role and the nominations and advice-and-consent process were subject to critical assessment and prompted proposals for reform; and

Here, we will get a rehash of FDR's Court Packing plan from 1937. The next portion is the most controversial: a summary of arguments for and against "Supreme Court reform," whatever that is:

(iii)  An analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals.

The EO does not explain what "Supreme Court reform" means. But the press release offers some guidance:

The Commission's purpose is to provide an analysis of the principal arguments in the contemporary public debate for and against Supreme Court reform, including an appraisal of the merits and legality of particular reform proposals. The topics it will examine include the genesis of the reform debate; the Court's role in the Constitutional system; the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court; the membership and size of the Court; and the Court's case selection, rules, and practices.

The President expects a solicitation of public comment:

(b)  The Commission shall solicit public comment, including other expert views, to ensure that its work is informed by a broad spectrum of ideas.

Dare I submit something?

And there is a 180-day deadline after the first meeting.

 (c)  The Commission shall submit its report to the President within 180 days of the date of the Commission's first public meeting.

Keep it mind it may take several months to put a meeting together. Accommodating the schedules of 36 very busy people will not be easy. We are probably looking at a report in late 2021 or early 2022.

Now something is obviously missing from this report: a recommendation. The New York Times explains:

It is not clear that the commission established by Mr. Biden will by itself clarify his position. Under the White House order establishing it, the commission is not set to issue specific recommendations at the end of its study — an outcome that is likely to disappoint activists.

As I understand this Commission, its report will be purely descriptive. There will not be any recommendations of what to do. Thus, dissents are probably unlikely.

What are we left with? Thirty-six very smart people will put together a comprehensive report that will collect dust on a virtual book shelf. It will be like another edition of the Holmes Devise. If I was a progressive activist, I would be fuming. Biden is playing his base.

Finally, the timing here could not be more inconvenient. Earlier this week, Justice Breyer gave a full-throated defense of the Court as a non-political institution. He warned against Court Reform. And, he did not clearly signal he was willing to step down before he was ready to. (Though his clerk hiring may suggest otherwise; Update: David Lat now notes that Breyer has hired all four clerks).  Demand Justice and other progressive groups are publicly calling on Breyer to retire. And how does President Biden respond to this pressure? Appoint a commission with reasonable people that may release a report around Thanksgiving that will not make any recommendations.

For those with a sense of nostalgia, you can see my prior Court-Packing posts here: Rules # 1234567, 8, 9.

NEXT: Biden Releases Names of Members of His Supreme Court Commission [Updated]

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. Report abuses.

  1. It has been more than two months since my last post on Court Packing.

    You know, you were allowed to leave it that way.

    1. I knew there had to be a reason the air seemed fresher lately.

    2. If only Biden was leaving it that way.

    3. How many more “rules” will Blackman squeeze out of this topic? I hesitate to estimate myself, feeling certain I’ll guess too low.

    4. But how many more months until BLOO JOON TOO??

  2. A smart move by Biden.

  3. Commissions like this are designed to fail. First rule of DC, name a commission so nothing is done.

    1. You haven’t been paying attention. They can be nonpartisan and productive (the 9/11 Commission) or deliberately slanted and a farce (the Meese Commission on Pornography). In a proper case with a nonpartisan lineup they can supply solutions which would not be politically possible if the President who appointed them proposed them on his own.

      1. 9/11 commission was an exception that proves the rule.

        36 members means to get consensus, a report has to be watered down.

        Maybe you are right, but there are not the votes in either narrowly divided house to increase the court size so who cares.

      2. I think that’s overly optimistic. The Simpson-Bowles commission and the Carter-Baker commissions both put out good, nonpartisan reports that were sent to the scrap heap.

        1. Simpson-Bowles commission

          The cat-food commission ???
          That thing wound up exactly where it belonged.

    2. Yeah, I think this is Biden’s way to have his cake and eat it too. The commission will dick around for a while, release some generalized findings, nothing is done but when pushed by his base he can say he has a commission working on the question.

    3. And that’s just to recommend to Congress, who will have its own commission aka twelve different committees. Just let me die of old age before this ever happens, so I don’t have to see the apolitical Supreme Court under an even tighter leash of the political branches, subservient to its power grabs sans amendments, and ultimate downfall on that fateful day when so little of the restraints on government are left it’s a tiny step for a charismstic dictator.

    4. Unless, of course, his puppetmaster doesn’t already have his response to the commission’s report already to go.

    5. I agree. This has the markings of appearing to do something, while in reality doing nothing. Everyone knows the issues around court-packing, it has been debated at least since Frankline Roosevelt. Someone in the Administraton had a moment of lucidity and decided to bury this, while still appeasing the radicals.

      In six months, this will be as important to U.S. politics as the Dodo bird.

      1. I think that is right. I don’t think Biden was ever on board with court packing, but a lot of his base was. I’m not sure this will really fool anyone. Radicals are notoriously hard to appease.

        1. Like a lot of the left’s current obsessions, (Aside from gun control, where he’s one of the fanatics.) Biden is neither on board, nor interested in standing his ground. Rather, he’s just a weather vane who isn’t certain which way the wind is blowing stronger.

  4. Give it a rest, Josh.

  5. Difficulty writing a report or reaching a consensus? How so?

    Presumably the commission will operate according to something similar to Robert’s Rules, if all of 24 “left” members plus one centrist move to close debate and call the question the report goes out, consensus or not.

  6. All I can say about this is that if Trump had proposed such a commission, he would have been skewered by both left and right for good reason. Even the idea that Biden would undermine the only remaining check on government power is unconscionable.

    The fact that it is likely to be ineffective means that Biden and Harris will simply take whatever they suggest and propose what they wanted anyway.

    1. The motivations are quite different as the Right has gotten their justices lately.

      1. Do you realize how childish that is?

        And Trump could have said the same thing.

  7. “Laurnce Tribe”; I think you’re missing an “e” there.

  8. The David Lat substack post Blackman linked to has been superseded. Lat now thinks there is a 70 percent chance Breyer is staying.

    https://twitter.com/DavidLat/status/1380568205794672640

  9. “No doubt bloggers and tweeters will attack positions they disagree with in real time, before seeing the final product. Get ready for the trolling, friends.”

    Josh is becoming self-aware.

  10. I am curious about just what power the dems have in terms of what is often called court packing. If something similar to the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 was proposed that allowed the prez to appoint additional SC justices it seems like under regular order it would need 60 votes in the senate to pass. Even if you take the position that 51 votes would be enough it is no sure thing that there are enough senators to reach that number.

    I am not convinced all this could be done before the 2022 midterms but am convinced it would be red meat for pub candidates for the House and Senate. While I have some other questions like what would happen if the pubs took control of the Congress and in 2023 passed a bill eliminating the additional SC justices what would happen. The bill could simply the new justices are out.

    I am reminded of several other proposals that ignore the reality of what it takes to get something through Congress in terms of time and votes.

    1. Depends on how ruthless the leadership are, and how determined they are to pull it off.

      These votes are all based off the number of members present, not the total membership. So, if you arrange for the vote to be held when some members are absent, you can do it with fewer votes.

      Potentially 31 votes for something that requires 60%, or 26 votes for something that needs 50% plus.

      I expect they’d do it on the filibuster, first, because that drastically simplifies pulling it off on other issues. And at this point they’d need to pull a quorum trick to get rid of the filibuster, because they haven’t got their entire caucus on board.

      But if they do abolish the filibuster, they then have to proceed directly to pushing a whole bunch of stuff through, because it’s total war from that point due to having to do the quorum trick to pull it off.

      So, if they’re planning this, they’ll first have to pass a bunch of stuff out of the House, so it can pass with only Senate action.

      1. Like there aren’t a few dems in marginal districts scared of having their hand forced, yeah, sure, they’ll throw themselves on a sword because of tired rhetoric about court packing that’s served its one real, and rhetorical, purpose: Trump loss.

        1. The Democrats have thrown away seats in marginal districts before, deliberately, to do big things. They burned some members in 1994 to get the AWB and Brady Bill passed, and they did the same in 2010 to pass the ACA.

          On both occasions it was obvious the votes were politically suicidal, but they got them anyway.

      2. To be clear: I’m not predicting that they will do this. I’m saying two things:

        1) It IS technically possible, if the leadership are determined to do it, even with their present 50% plus VP ‘majority’.

        2) If they do it, they won’t just do it, they’ll slam a whole bunch of controversial stuff through, because they WILL be losing Congress in the next election if they haven’t seriously entrenched themselves.

        They’re only going to pack the Court if they mean to get off Erdogan’s train, which implies doing a lot of things besides, some of which would make those troops they have in DC absolutely necessary.

        1. It is hard for me to imagine a time line where getting anything but a filibuster limitation passed before Senators would rush to the floor to oppose the ‘lot of things’ they want to pass.

          Not to mention once Mansion and maybe the AZ and MT Senators fight back.

          Sad to say I think troops in DC are going to be the new normal.

          1. You’d have to do it when they were fairly remote from DC, and then push through one vote after another immediately after you’d done it, like, the same day. So that it would be physically impossible for them to get back in time to stop it.

            And, as I said, the first thing indicating it was coming would be a bunch of very controversial measures getting passed through the House, so that they’d only need a Senate vote to become law.

            Mind, back in the 90’s they pulled off some pretty controversial and consequential procedural votes without even HAVING a quorum present, just three members, using unanimous voice votes. But they’ve never tried actually passing legislation yet that way, so far as I know. I suppose abolishing the quorum could be considered a procedural vote, but that takes cooperation from the minority leader, and I doubt McConnell would be helpful, to say the least.

            I might despise him, but he’s no Bob Dole, thankfully.

            1. Sorry, abolishing the filibuster. Abolishing the quorum would be edgier than even I can imagine the current Democratic leadership being.

      3. Putting aside the optics of doing what is detailed in your post I have to wonder how realistic it is.

        I doubt the the Senators from WV, AZ, GA, MT (for starters) would go along with this type of ruse with elections coming up. Not to mention some House members have been pushing back against the more radical proposals from the left.

        From what I keep reading on the internet court packing is really not all that popular with a majority of voters. It seems to have a limited appeal.

        I still think realistically there is a slim to none chance of anything coming out of the commission being enacted.

        1. Like I said, it’s the sort of thing you’d only do if you were totally ruthless, and planning on getting off Erdogan’s train. It isn’t something you’d do if you intended for normal politics to continue.

      4. I don’t believe this is correct. For voting, you need 1/2 or 2/3 of the total house. Otherwise, these various runaway congresses would simply make it easier on their opponents.

        1. Nope. Not doing it unless most of the members are present is merely a courtesy, extended to avoid the chamber becoming a virtual war zone. It isn’t required by the rules.

          If they didn’t mind all out political war, they could do it.

    2. Far from ignoring the political realities involved, this move could be characterized as being conscious of them.

      Appointing a commission to study something is a traditional way to create an impression one is doing something without actually doing anything.

      The fact that this commission is not even tasked with making recommendations, together with the fact that its political balance makes it unlikely to reach a concensus on anything major, reinforces the impression that that is its real purpose.

      1. 2/3 leftwingers is “political balance”?

        1. It is when a substantial number of the left-wingers are against court packing.

    3. @ragebot, with regards to your question about a potential decrease in seats (under a future Republican congress), my belief is that such a change would be similar to when the Court’s membership was reduced from 10 to 7 justices in 1866 (14 Stat. L. 209, later amended by 16 Stat. L. 44). In reducing the number of seats, the 1866 statute basically stated that no new appointments could be made until the number of justices dropped below 7. In other words, Congress can reduce the size of the Court, but any such reduction doesn’t actually occur until the justice(s) occupying the now eliminated seat(s) leave the bench. After they depart, the seat they occupied is eliminated and thus no new appointment can be made.

      That assessment is just based on how a decrease was handled in the past.

      1. I am aware of what happened in 1866 but I see no reason Congress could not pass a law saying the number of justices is reduced and the most recent seated will be unseated. Especially if they got seated due to a recent court packing.

        Not saying I like to optics of either court packing or uncourt packing; just that with the way politics are now optics seems to be irrelevant.

        1. “I see no reason Congress could not pass a law saying the number of justices is reduced and the most recent seated will be unseated”

          Article III, Section 1.

  11. Lawyers are the stupidest. Of all lawyers, Supreme Court Justices are the stupidest of all. Know nothing bookworm, autistic savants get to make national policy on complicated technical subjects. They are always wrong. Their effect has been devastating. Dred Scott. Roe v Wade. Mass murders, holocausts thanks to these dumbasses. They cannot even read the plain, 8th grade English of the constitution.

    If these dumbasses are to make law, cancel law, make their number that of a legislature, 500. Make their number an even number to end these awful 5-4 decisions. Move them to a jurisdiction not addicted to big government tyranny. Exclude the vilest occupation in the nation, and disqualify anyone who has passed 1L. Feel free to pick random members of some jury pool. Pick people from special ed class to improve the decisions and the clarity of the writing. Allow them to investigate facts, not just nitpicking stupid errors of law. Fund them the best investigators, the best experts, to review cases both in fact and in law. Grow up, you lawyer dumbasses. Your profession sucks.

    1. Explain something to me. You hate lawyers. Why do you come to a legal blog?

      I am an Orthodox Jew. I don’t eat pork, but I know it is sold in a supermarket, along with many other foods. If I went to a pork specialty store where they offered dozens of different kinds of delicious pork, I would be thought a fool.

      1. “Why do you come to a legal blog?”

        This is a movement conservative blog.

        The thin legal veneer does nothing to change that point.

      2. That’s like asking why Klan members didn’t just stay away from black homes and black churches.

  12. It strikes me as more than passing strange that this high-minded crew contains not one practitioner of law.

    1. Sherrilyn Ifill (NAACP LDF) I think counts, but yeah, not many.

      1. Is she actually a practitioner — or lobbyist?
        Or is she like what Morris Dees has become?

  13. More of the “unity” incoming I see.

  14. There are plenty of tweets to cite.

    Ordinarily, I only expect to find lines of this quality in the Comments. Might have to start reading more of the actual articles.

  15. It’s indisputable that Obama and Biden were gay lovers in the Oval Office. The only question is, who was the pitcher and who was the catcher? Was Obama pitching his chocolate love deep into Biden’s butthole, or was Obama grabbing the edge of the desk while Biden plowed him good and hard, leaving a massive load of creepy old man cream to drip out in front of Michelle?

    1. Damn dude, maybe take a cold shower or something. This is way hornier than a Blackman column warrants.

  16. “Oh, and there is no compensation for service.”

    It isn’t like the law schools are going to dock them their salaries…

  17. Law Professors are more naive than a kindergardener. With the 2-1 majority, the liberal fix is in, for court packing. Under the fig leaf of bipartisanship (“A bipartisan consensus…”).

    The commission does not need a recommendation, the conclusion is drawn. The goal is for 24 law professors to write briefs rationalizing court packing.

  18. This is a laughably dismissive article. Odd for a Libertarian mag to not see Biden’s actions for what they are, a pretext to turn the Supreme Court into a leftist rubber stamp. The author here seems to think this commission could not possibly render a decisive ruling on court-packing because its comprised of only a 2:1 ratio of liberal to non-liberal “experts.”

    For a break down of the commission, there are 24 outright “left” members on this commission, 5 “centrists” (aka leftists but more subtile about it) members and 7 “right-of-center” members (a phrase that could mean actual constitutionalists or neocons not at all invested in preserving constitutionality). That reads to me far worse than the already concerning 2:1 ratio the author describes. From here the author concludes the commission could not possibly render a decision. Surely they are mistaken. The majority will render a majority decision and then there will be a dissenting opinion. The Biden administration will go with whatever the majority says, because the majority is so coincidentally strongly aligned with their world views and then they will ignore the dissenting opinion but say “hey, we heard from all sides on this issue” to further validate their decision. The fact that this is hard for the author to grasp here is embarrassing.

    1. yep, basically this.

    2. Do you really think that an end result of all of this will be a packed court? Or that Biden really thinks it will be?

      Biden is a politician first and last. He’s never even been a fan of court packing in theory, and it would ultimately do him far more harm than good to really commit to it, knowing full well that’s it’s not going to happen.

      I suppose I could be naive, but it might be equally naive to assume that Biden is some kind of far left crusader rather than a self serving politician.

      1. This is all assuming Biden is in control right now. I’m not inclined to believe he is. Since taking office, he has done several things he said he would never do. Case in point, pre-election he claimed there would be no ban on fracking. Day one in office he banned new fracking. Pre-election he claimed he wasn’t in favor of ending the fillibuster, now he is calling it a Jim Crow tool and getting very close to calling it to be done away with. Pre-election he claimed no new taxes on anyone making less than $400,000 a year. His new tax plan doesn’t really comport with that narrative now either. He also said before the election he didn’t support the green new deal because he has his own green plan. Now that green plan is a bunch of green new deal policies stuffed inside of a bloated “infrastructure” bill. Biden is either a moral coward or liar or he is not mentally together enough to remember what he promised and manage to stick to it. I don’t trust him not to pack the supreme court and he’s already taking steps to do just that.

        1. Yes, people never govern differently than they campaigned.

          1. That’s exactly my point. Biden is not at all attached to the things he says he is. He’s either lying or he’s not in control.

  19. Biden is playing his base.

    I remember reading stuff saying right wingers understand the left better than the left understands the right. Never seen anything to make me believe it.

    If Blackman thinks Biden’s base is among Democratic Party progressives, what could anyone tell Blackman that would help? Biden’s base consists of the most cautious people in the Democratic Party—including plenty who ideologically look a lot like Republicans—plus however many people know Biden from Wilmington and think he’s a decent guy, plus a lot of corporate types Biden has cultivated for decades. None of those folks expect a court commission to do anything.

    Credit Biden’s political skills for the fact that a lot more people than just those are behind him now, and none of them are going to feel like they, “got played,” if court enlargement doesn’t happen. Progressives will be pretty unhappy if Breyer doesn’t resign before either happenstance or Joe Manchin hands the Senate back to Mitch McConnell, but that’s not on Biden.

    1. I think you’re right, but I’m going to assume that Blackman is just being imprecise with his terminology and means that Biden is just going through motions in an effort to show some of the more left leaning folks who held their noses to vote for him that he’s looking into the possibility of giving them what they want, knowing full well that it’s not a hill he, or the Democratic Party, are prepared to die on.

      Do you think that’s fair?

    2. I am not sure Biden has any real base. The only reason he got the dem nomination is Clayborne pimped for him with blacks in SC. Until then Bernie was the leader, but not really with a majority. There was no real favorite and after Harris bashed Biden in the debate both she and Biden were very much out of favor. How those two wound up being the dem ticket was due to lots of smoke filled room deals with no one really knowing who was pulling the strings. I honestly thought Warren was going to get the nomination till Clayborne made sure no one but Biden would get the black vote.

    3. “I remember reading stuff saying right wingers understand the left better than the left understands the right.”

      That’s based on surveys, where members of each side were asked a series of questions, and then asked how they thought the other side would answer them. The conservatives were much better at predicting the liberals’ answers, than the other way around.

      The ability to predict is a form of understanding, even if it isn’t based on reasoning that the understood like.

  20. Admittedly an outlier view, and I know that the big conference announcement has been made according to plan, and everyone who’s anyone knows the deal is sealed, and is off networking in the bar, but just a quick thought from the cheap seats:

    The executive order specifically provides that the commission shall report to the President on the legality of potential reforms to the court. A quick scan on Wikipedia through the handful of Presidential Commissions relating to law doesn’t reveal similar language — at least one seems to emphasize the administrative and policymaking aspects of the legal questions. OLC’s delegation from the AG is formalized in the CFR. The AG’s role was one of the first (part-time) job descriptions posted on Indeed.com at the Founding. How is it that the President is seeking a formal advisory opinion on the legality of a policy action from a body operating from no legislative fiat, with commissioners with no appointment/removal protections, and no basis for distinguishing the grounds of their work from that of the statutorily enabled and judicially ratified/proclaimed work of the Judicial Conference?

    Say the last President had decided to form an official commission to issue a formal report on the legality of overriding the certification of an election, after his AG at the time refused to countenance it? Or if Jack Kennedy had decided to take all of his legal advice on potential policy actions from a Boston firm after Bobby maliciously tripped him up during a football game?

    Again – it’s the mandate to provide a formal report on the legality of the policy options that… just strikes me as a mite odd.

    Mr. D.

  21. What obscene racists those people are. What would you think if you got the highest judgeship in the land, and you KNEW that the reason you got it was because you checked sufficient boxes?

    These racists don’t care about the judge. They don’t care about ability. They just care about the color of her skin.

    I think I found an infinitely renewable energy source. Just hook a magnet to Dr King, as you know he’s spinning in his grave.

    1. Uh, race is not the only factor in picking a judge. Your logic only works if they’re not taking jurisprudence into account at all.

      1. Guessing he’s referring to the folks who hired the advert truck?

        1. Hit send too soon…

          Of course if you knew that and think that demanding a black woman isn’t about race vs. jurisprudence, that’s a good indicator how far we’ve drifted away from equality of opportunity.

Please to post comments