HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » SCOTUS: unqualified.

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 03:54 PM

SCOTUS: unqualified.

33 replies, 7556 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply SCOTUS: unqualified. (Original post)
634-5789 Mar 2022 OP
DURHAM D Mar 2022 #1
RamblingRose Mar 2022 #4
erronis Mar 2022 #6
niyad Mar 2022 #21
JHB Mar 2022 #12
ShazzieB Mar 2022 #15
IronLionZion Mar 2022 #16
JHB Mar 2022 #26
appmanga Mar 2022 #28
Thunderbeast Mar 2022 #2
DinahMoeHum Mar 2022 #7
SergeStorms Mar 2022 #17
milestogo Mar 2022 #3
peppertree Mar 2022 #23
Demovictory9 Mar 2022 #5
usonian Mar 2022 #8
H2O Man Mar 2022 #13
Calista241 Mar 2022 #32
usonian Mar 2022 #33
Hugin Mar 2022 #9
marieo1 Mar 2022 #10
onenote Mar 2022 #11
Skittles Mar 2022 #14
walkingman Mar 2022 #18
PoliticAverse Mar 2022 #25
PoliticAverse Mar 2022 #19
onenote Mar 2022 #24
TexasBushwhacker Mar 2022 #20
peppertree Mar 2022 #22
Escurumbele Mar 2022 #27
BobTheSubgenius Mar 2022 #29
Goonch Mar 2022 #30
BlueWavePsych Mar 2022 #31

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:00 PM

1. Clarence Thomas was not qualified either.

Has anyone done this type of thing on him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:19 PM

4. I would love to see a comparison of the Justices

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RamblingRose (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:24 PM

6. Excellent idea. Not sure all of the categories to use

and there would be some subjectivity.

Obviously the FedSoc would have different grades than the ACLU or ABA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RamblingRose (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 06:09 PM

21. Hillary had a tweet with exactly that information a few days ago. It was posted

here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:49 PM

12. Not as a graphic, but me from 2014:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10024571481#post47

The reason Thomas was put on the SC was...
...NOT because he was the most qualified jurist. He wasn't.
...NOT because he was the most qualified black jurist. He wasn't.
...NOT because he was the most qualified black conservative jurist. He wasn't.

He was the most qualified black conservative with reliable but obfuscatable views on abortion & other subjects, and was young enough that he'd stay on the court for decades.

The Democratic senators were initially ready to give him a pass, since 1) they didn't look forward to another SC nomination battle, and 2) initially the black community was receptive to Thomas -- not enthusiastic, but not inclined to oppose -- and a fight against him wouldn't be well received.

At the time I thought Thomas should have been voted down just because of his lackluster record and ignoring conflict of interest (Thomas failed to recuse himself in a case involving the Ralston Purina company, where his political mentor Sen. John Danforth owned millions in stock and had brothers on the board of directors. Thomas' decision in favor of Purina directly benefited his pals).

Black opinion didn't shift until later in the process, after Thurgood Marshall made his "a black snake is still a snake" comment. The senators were finally forced to take a harder line when the harassment charges leaked out, and giving Thomas a pass would piss off another Democratic constituency: women fighting workplace harassment.

But all that happened too late: by that point conservatives were ginned up in support and the rest of the establishment didn't want another high-profile fight, so the Thomas hearings were kept to a he-said-she-said with Anita Hill (Angela Wright was shunted off to the side), giving the senators their excuse to just put it behind them.

So here we are, a quarter-century later, and he's still a lackluster jurist who ignores conflicts of interest, and is a reliable conservative operative in the courts.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #12)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 05:03 PM

15. All true, except he's now been on the court for 30 years.

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2022, 06:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Three decades, and counting. *weary sigh*

Poppy Bush knew exactly what he was doing when he picked a 43 year old for that SCOTUS seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ShazzieB (Reply #15)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 05:15 PM

16. They needed to make up for the mistake of David Souter

Poppy's first appointee turned out to be liberal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #16)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 07:50 PM

26. At the time, I'm not sure they'd concluded Souter was a mistake.

I haven't researched that part, but my general recollection was that it was a few years later that they'd figured out that Souter wasn't the ideological operative they'd thought he was when they'd nominated him.


For the Thomas hearings, it was more a case of picking a black conservative to replace Thurgood Marshal. However, most black conservative jurists at the time were prone to having "conservatively incorrect" views in civil rights matters. But Senator Danforth said "i know a guy", and the rest is sorry history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DURHAM D (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 11:31 AM

28. Clarence Thomas...

...makes her look like Chief Justice Taft. Just part of his biography from Oyez.org:

"Thomas transferred to College of the Holy Cross and graduated in 1971 with a bachelor’s degree in English Literature and a passion for civil rights that drove him to pursue a career in law. He attended Yale Law School as one of the first students to benefit from the open admissions program that offered positions to black students in all-white colleges. Years later, Thomas would grow to abhor affirmative action, as hiring partners and other white colleagues would credit his accomplishments not to hard work and dedication, but to the color of his skin and the measures schools took to recruit black students. Upon graduation, Thomas began working in the office of the Missouri Attorney General after being admitted to the Missouri bar in 1974. In 1977, he worked for Senator John C. Danforth as his legislative assistant. After four years working with Danforth, President Reagan appointed Thomas as the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education. A year later, Reagan propelled his career even further by appointing him Chairman of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. By this point in Thomas’ life, he was still living with severe debt from student loans, an issue made worse by his addiction to alcohol. Once Thomas decided he could no longer afford to drink as he did, he quit drinking all together. Thomas served at the EEOC for eight years, and in 1990, President George H. W. Bush nominated Thomas to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit.

As a 43-year-old with barely one year of experience on the judiciary under his belt, Clarence Thomas was quite young and inexperienced when George H. W. Bush nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1991"
.

https://www.oyez.org/justices/clarence_thomas

Edited even further to add: I've always thought of Thomas as one of America's greatest cowards, and 30 plus years on the Supreme Court has validated that. I can't think of one decision where he's ever ruled in favor of the less powerful over the more so, and his rulings in Fourth Amendment and prisoners' rights cases are the stuff of "Twilight Zone" episodes. Turds like him and Tim Scott think they're brave because they go against "the liberal plantation orthodoxy" when they've traded in their ability to make a difference for the comforting cloak of personal gain and the "let 'em eat cake" conservative mindset. I don't now if I have as much disdain for any other people on Earth (including a fat-assed orange idiot grifter) as I have for them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:14 PM

2. Yeah but the BABIES!

F#@kin' Christfosciests!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thunderbeast (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:26 PM

7. Speaking of which, wind her up. . .

. . .she gets pregnant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DinahMoeHum (Reply #7)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 05:15 PM

17. Birth control is a sin.

We already know how ACB will decide on Griswold, and I believe the far right has it's heart set on overturning that as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:14 PM

3. But I am willing to betray all American women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to milestogo (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 06:45 PM

23. That's half the fun when you're a Republican

The same way Thomass betrays minorities, and Alito betrays working class people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:23 PM

5. K&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:29 PM

8. Saw this earlier. On DU?



Ivy League?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to usonian (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:52 PM

13. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to usonian (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 12:03 PM

32. yeah, i don't think she should be knocked for going to Notre Dame.

Instead of an 'Ivy League' school. Notre Dame is one of the best law schools in the country. And most of the 'Ivy League' is living on a reputation, especially the schools not named Harvard, Yale or Columbia.

While I wish it wasn't Barrett, and that she wasn't on the court, I think it's good to have judges from different educational backgrounds. All of them being from Yale, Harvard or Columbia isn't the best IMO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Calista241 (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 01:03 PM

33. IANAL, so I can't comment on the quality of any law school.

Especially when most senators and congresspeople are law school graduates, and half of them are acting in pure cult mode!

Objectivity compels me to believe that your education, religion or "pedigree" is evidenced by your behavior, rather than anything else.

And that's an individual choice, "papers" aside.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:30 PM

9. Anyone know what her stand is on parking garages?

Critical jurisprudence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:30 PM

10. uNQUALIFIED

My opinion............GET RID OF HER AND KAVANAUGH!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:47 PM

11. By that measure, some pretty great Justices were unqualified.

William O Douglas. Felix Frankfurter. Louis Brandeis. Harlan Finke Stone.

Also, more recently, Lewis Powell and Elena Kagan.

It's a stupid meme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:53 PM

14. she is a repuke hack

nothing more

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 05:19 PM

18. Much like Trump, she was chosen by Jesus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to walkingman (Reply #18)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 06:58 PM

25. The Federalist Society really. n/t



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 05:29 PM

19. The American Bar Association rated her "Well Qualified".

The Standing Committee concluded that Judge Barrett merits our highest rating and is “Well Qualified” for appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States.


https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/federal_judiciary/resources/supreme-court-nominations/amy-coney-barrett/

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/government_affairs_office/2020-10-15-aba-scfj-barrett-final-statement.pdf


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #19)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 06:54 PM

24. The meme is stupid

BY the measures in the meme, Elena Kagan is unqualified. And William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Louis Brandeis.

There are folks here who think Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are qualified to be SCOTUS Justices, but by the measures applied in the meme, that wouldn't be the case.

That meme is almost as stupid as Carlson asking about Jackson's LSAT scores.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 06:02 PM

20. And there's the fact that she endorsed an anti-abortion terrorist group

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 06:43 PM

22. And as bad as the Handmaid is - she's far from the worst in today's Extreme Court

That would be Mr. Pubic Hair (or Scalito).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 11:30 AM

27. Her qualification, I am afraid to say, is in the eyes of the beholder, she is perfect for repubs.

For anyone else? NO!, but for republicans she is the ideal woman, one who obeys and doesn't question. I bet anyone that in her case the one who makes the decisions, who decides how she votes is her husband.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 11:37 AM

29. You could add "unscrupulous" to the description.

Who would even accept a nomination when they HAVE to know that they are barely more qualified than a student at Harvard Law? And that student may have far greater potential, to boot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 11:46 AM

30. Supremacy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 11:59 AM

31. Pack the effing courts already!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread