401
this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2024
401 points (96.7% liked)
News
23267 readers
3048 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That is still not an explanation for why judge Jackson would be the sort of SCOTUS judge Trump would pick if both parties are the same.
Its an explanation for why a judge approved by Joe Biden is going to give us another Trump presidency.
I didn't ask for that explanation.
If you aren't able to explain why Trump would pick a justice like Jackson when both parties are the same, just say so.
Because you don't want Joe Biden carrying any culpability for the current 6-3 Conservative Majority.
We've got multiple Republican SCOTUS nominees who took office on his watch. We know what that leads to, because we know the outcome of Bush v Gore. We know what eight years of Bush did to the country and how it led directly to the election of Trump.
So why would four more years of Biden - a man who gave us the courts that gave us Bush and Trump - produce a majority of Judge Jacksons? He appears far better at seating judges like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Alito.
Why can't you just admit you won't give me the explanation I asked for a long time ago?
Why would I want a President who put Thomas on the bench?
Not relevant to what I asked. If you can't answer what I asked, I'm not going to talk to you about anything else, sorry.
A Democrat who concedes to Republican threats will be as likely to put a guy like Thomas up as Trump would. We got lucky with Jackson, but Biden's clearly in a state of deterioration. Very likely we end up with him compromising us down to another Thomas or ACB in his second term, as he and his friends on the Judiciary committee are known to do.
I wish you would just admit you can't answer what I asked.
For the very last time and please just answer and stop moving the goalposts: If the parties are the same, why would Trump have chosen Jackson as a SCOTUS justice?
Ask Bush Sr why he picked David Souter. I have no idea why he'd pick a justice like Jackson, but conservatives picking liberal judges has been known to happen.
All I know is that - between Biden Democrats and Trump Republicans - we've had a stacked conservative court despite Democrats holding the Presidency for twice as long. This would suggest that both parties endorse a conservative majority on the courts.
If the parties were both the same, you would have an idea since it would be the same reason Biden did it. But you can't say that since you know Trump would not pick a left-wing black woman for a justice as that is absolutely absurd.
So thank you for proving my point.
That's nonsense. Can you explain how Bush Sr picked both Souter and Thomas? He's the same guy, so explaining the gulf between the candidates should be easy.
Bush Jr picked liberal feminist Harriet Myers less than a month before he switched to rabid conservative fanatic Samuel Alito. Myers was shot down by Biden's judiciary committee. Can you explain that?
Can you explain the gulf between Merrick Garland and Sonya Sotomayer? Both Obama nominees. How about the distance between Sandra Day O'Conner and Robert Bork? Both Reagan nominees.
You don't know your judicial history. You certainly don't know how Trump or Biden make political decisions.
Souter and Thomas were right-wing and calling Harriet Miers a feminist or even suggesting she is a capable justice on the level of justice Jackson is proof that you are not serious.
Again- if the parties are the same, Trump and Biden would have the same reason to pick her.
Which you are claiming is not the case.
Which, again, proves my point.
Either they are the same or they're not the same. You want it both ways.
And no, I'm not going to explain anything while you insist on having it both ways, sorry.
But... since you know your judicial history and know why they pick justices, you can still explain what that same reason is.
So what is it?
Souter was a reliable liberal vote for the entirety of his term on the bench. And he was from the same Harvard legal school that dominates the Supreme Court to this day.
This is gibberish. She's not a feminist? She's not capable of the level of justice? What on earth are you even talking about? Miers had been a sponsor of the Women's Studies department at HBU since the 90s, ran multiple successful legal firms hearing cases at all levels of the judiciary in both Texas and California, and headed up the Texas State Bar before joining Bush Jr as his personal lawyer. She was right in line with conservative Democrats appointed by Carter, Clinton, and Obama, and could easily have stood in for Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Ketanji Brown Jackson as a professional judge.
They are the same. They consistently put up candidates from the same insular club of Harvard Ivy League SCOTUS clerks. When Presidents step outside of line - as with the Miers nomination or the Bork nomination - the Senate reins them back in, regardless of the quality of the candidate.
There's your reasoning. Its the Biden Judiciary that controls who has sat the bench and who has been disqualified for the last 40 years. And that's why the SCOTUS sucks today. Jackson is not exemplary. She's just another Harvard lemming, groomed to strictly defer to conservative hegemony that dominates legal jurisprudence.
Trump may well pick someone outside that niche, but the Senate will kill the nomination and force him back into his lane. Then he'll queue up yet one more cloistered nun of the Harvard Law Review, just like his peers in the Democratic Party.
You find me one feminist who agrees with your assessment of Harriet Miers and we'll move on from there.
Church Ladies vs Harriet Miers
"Christian Feminism Today."
Are you fucking serious?
No, no you're not. Because the entire argument that article makes for her being a feminist is her weakly indicating she wasn't entirely anti-abortion.
Either you didn't think I'd read that or you have an incredibly misogynistic idea of what a feminist is.
So I think there's no point in continuing.
My guy, you want news stories from a twenty year old story via a search engine that doesn't work. This is what you get. I'm sorry I couldn't find Gloria Steinem's "In defense is Harriet Miers" LiveJournal page, that URL was beyond me.
You're being nakedly dishonest. The article lauds her intelligence and independence and concludes she was ousted for being an unreliable conservative block vote.
This is exactly why both parties keep returning to the Harvard Law Review well when selecting candidates. Any deviance from that singular legal institution is intolerable.
It's central to the case that both of these parties are putting up the same people.