Breyer to retire
-
I forgot: He already pledged...
Joe Biden has promised that if elected president, he'd put the first black woman on the Supreme Court. To make good on that pledge, he’d have to look in some atypical places.
Supreme Court justices are usually elevated from a federal appeals court. Eleven of the last 12 confirmed justices were plucked from an appellate court — the exception was Elena Kagan, who was the U.S. solicitor general, a position so embedded with the institution it has been nicknamed “the tenth justice.”
Only five black women are now on U.S. appeals courts, and all of them will be 68 or older this year, according to data compiled by NBC News from the Federal Judicial Center.
Biden would face pressure to pick someone younger who could secure the seat for a generation or more. None of the last seven confirmed justices were older than 55 when nominated.
There are only nine Democratic-appointed black women on the federal bench younger than 55 this year. All are district court judges picked by President Barack Obama. The youngest is Leslie Abrams Gardner, 45, the sister of Biden vice presidential contender Stacey Abrams. Another name that stands out is Ketanji Brown Jackson, 49, a judge in Washington who was on Obama’s Supreme Court shortlist in 2016.
I hope that his nominee will have all the grace, class and competence of the other black woman he chose.
@george-k said in Breyer to retire:
I forgot: He already pledged...
Joe Biden has promised that if elected president, he'd put the first black woman on the Supreme Court. To make good on that pledge, he’d have to look in some atypical places.
This is pretty common. Reagan promised to put a woman on the court. Elder Bush chose Thomas to replace Marshall, if you think race was accidental in that selection there’s always that bridge you can buy. In the fall of 2020 Trump pledged to nominate a woman.
-
@george-k said in Breyer to retire:
I forgot: He already pledged...
Joe Biden has promised that if elected president, he'd put the first black woman on the Supreme Court. To make good on that pledge, he’d have to look in some atypical places.
This is pretty common. Reagan promised to put a woman on the court. Elder Bush chose Thomas to replace Marshall, if you think race was accidental in that selection there’s always that bridge you can buy. In the fall of 2020 Trump pledged to nominate a woman.
@jon-nyc I'd forgotten about Trump's pledge, but not the others.
Continuing about the GOP blocking the nomination via procedures path (see "inside baseball" - above).
Nope:
"Motion to discharge" requires a simple majority.
But it's interesting what happens when the senate is tied - does the VEEP have a say?
There seems to be a difference of opinion.
The Dersh: https://www.newsweek.com/can-vice-president-break-tie-supreme-court-confirmation-opinion-1533563
Never in our history has a Supreme Court nomination been confirmed by an equally divided vote among U.S. senators, with the vice president breaking the tie. But if one more Republican senator decides to vote no on President Donald Trump’s nominee—whoever she may be—we may face that situation. Did the Framers of our Constitution consider such a result? Several provisions and statements of the Framers cast light on this question.
There are three provisions of the Constitution that are most relevant. Article 2 empowers the president to “nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court.” Article 1 provides that “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” Article 1 also states that “Each house may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”
It is clear, therefore, that in voting on proposed statutes, the vice president is authorized to cast a tie-breaking vote. But did the Framers intend the same rule to apply when the president is seeking the advice and consent of senators to a judicial nomination? We can’t know for certain, because the Constitution and Federalist Papers focus on the vice president’s role in breaking ties over legislation, not confirmation.
Lawrence Tribe: https://archive.is/qPnVS
While the vice president has the power to cast a tiebreaking vote to pass a bill, the Constitution does not give him the power to break ties when it comes to the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” role in approving presidential appointments to the Supreme Court.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Alexander Hamilton said the same thing way back in 1788, in Federalist No. 69: “In the national government, if the Senate should be divided, no appointment could be made.” Hamilton contrasted that rule with how appointments worked back then in his home state of New York, where the governor actually did have the power to break ties to confirm nominations to New York state offices.
Consistent with Hamilton’s understanding, as two thoughtful recent scholarly analyses have pointed out, no vice president in our history has ever cast a tiebreaking vote to confirm an appointment to the Supreme Court. If Pence tried to cast the deciding vote to confirm Trump’s nomination to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week at age 87, it would be the first time that has ever happened. That should matter to everyone — it certainly matters (or used to matter) to “originalists,” who emphasize the importance of history when interpreting our Constitution.
I doubt it'll come to that, with Collins being the 51st vote.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Interesting timing… Will the female black judge that got the position at least in part because she is a black female be on the bench and making a decision on the Affirmative Action Admissions case?
-
This post is deleted!
-
Seen on Twitter:
"The main character of the last show you watched has been nominated to the Supreme Court."
Well...
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Seen on Twitter:
"The main character of the last show you watched has been nominated to the Supreme Court."
Well...
We have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Yes, there are two paths you can go by, but in the long run, there's still time to change the road you're on. -
@jon-nyc I'd forgotten about Trump's pledge, but not the others.
Continuing about the GOP blocking the nomination via procedures path (see "inside baseball" - above).
Nope:
"Motion to discharge" requires a simple majority.
But it's interesting what happens when the senate is tied - does the VEEP have a say?
There seems to be a difference of opinion.
The Dersh: https://www.newsweek.com/can-vice-president-break-tie-supreme-court-confirmation-opinion-1533563
Never in our history has a Supreme Court nomination been confirmed by an equally divided vote among U.S. senators, with the vice president breaking the tie. But if one more Republican senator decides to vote no on President Donald Trump’s nominee—whoever she may be—we may face that situation. Did the Framers of our Constitution consider such a result? Several provisions and statements of the Framers cast light on this question.
There are three provisions of the Constitution that are most relevant. Article 2 empowers the president to “nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint … Judges of the Supreme Court.” Article 1 provides that “The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.” Article 1 also states that “Each house may determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”
It is clear, therefore, that in voting on proposed statutes, the vice president is authorized to cast a tie-breaking vote. But did the Framers intend the same rule to apply when the president is seeking the advice and consent of senators to a judicial nomination? We can’t know for certain, because the Constitution and Federalist Papers focus on the vice president’s role in breaking ties over legislation, not confirmation.
Lawrence Tribe: https://archive.is/qPnVS
While the vice president has the power to cast a tiebreaking vote to pass a bill, the Constitution does not give him the power to break ties when it comes to the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” role in approving presidential appointments to the Supreme Court.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Alexander Hamilton said the same thing way back in 1788, in Federalist No. 69: “In the national government, if the Senate should be divided, no appointment could be made.” Hamilton contrasted that rule with how appointments worked back then in his home state of New York, where the governor actually did have the power to break ties to confirm nominations to New York state offices.
Consistent with Hamilton’s understanding, as two thoughtful recent scholarly analyses have pointed out, no vice president in our history has ever cast a tiebreaking vote to confirm an appointment to the Supreme Court. If Pence tried to cast the deciding vote to confirm Trump’s nomination to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died last week at age 87, it would be the first time that has ever happened. That should matter to everyone — it certainly matters (or used to matter) to “originalists,” who emphasize the importance of history when interpreting our Constitution.
I doubt it'll come to that, with Collins being the 51st vote.
-
@improviso said in Breyer to retire:
@george-k said in Breyer to retire:
Well...
You can’t send him to Washington. He’d be exhausted.
-
@improviso said in Breyer to retire:
@george-k said in Breyer to retire:
Well...
You can’t send him to Washington. He’d be exhausted.
@mik said in Breyer to retire:
You can’t send him to Washington. He’d be exhausted.
And, if you watched the mini-series, you'd know he's unavailable.
-
@mik said in Breyer to retire:
You can’t send him to Washington. He’d be exhausted.
And, if you watched the mini-series, you'd know he's unavailable.
-
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
