Sun Mar 27, 2022, 02:54 PM

634-5789 (3,981 posts)

SCOTUS: unqualified.

33 replies, 7643 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

33 replies	Author	Time	Post
SCOTUS: unqualified. (Original post)	634-5789	Mar 2022	OP
Clarence Thomas was not qualified either.	DURHAM D	Mar 2022	#1
I would love to see a comparison of the Justices	RamblingRose	Mar 2022	#4
Excellent idea. Not sure all of the categories to use	erronis	Mar 2022	#6
Hillary had a tweet with exactly that information a few days ago. It was posted	niyad	Mar 2022	#21
Not as a graphic, but me from 2014:	JHB	Mar 2022	#12
All true, except he's now been on the court for 30 years.	ShazzieB	Mar 2022	#15
They needed to make up for the mistake of David Souter	IronLionZion	Mar 2022	#16
At the time, I'm not sure they'd concluded Souter was a mistake.	JHB	Mar 2022	#26
Clarence Thomas...	appmanga	Mar 2022	#28
Yeah but the BABIES!	Thunderbeast	Mar 2022	#2
Speaking of which, wind her up. . .	DinahMoeHum	Mar 2022	#7
Birth control is a sin.	SergeStorms	Mar 2022	#17
But I am willing to betray all American women.	milestogo	Mar 2022	#3
That's half the fun when you're a Republican	peppertree	Mar 2022	#23
K&r	Demovictory9	Mar 2022	#5
Saw this earlier. On DU?	usonian	Mar 2022	#8
+1	H2O Man	Mar 2022	#13
yeah, i don't think she should be knocked for going to Notre Dame.	Calista241	Mar 2022	#32
IANAL, so I can't comment on the quality of any law school.	usonian	Mar 2022	#33
Anyone know what her stand is on parking garages?	Hugin	Mar 2022	#9
uNQUALIFIED	marieo1	Mar 2022	#10
By that measure, some pretty great Justices were unqualified.	onenote	Mar 2022	#11
she is a repuke hack	Skittles	Mar 2022	#14
Much like Trump, she was chosen by Jesus.	walkingman	Mar 2022	#18
The Federalist Society really. n/t	PoliticAverse	Mar 2022	#25
The American Bar Association rated her "Well Qualified".	PoliticAverse	Mar 2022	#19
The meme is stupid	onenote	Mar 2022	#24
And there's the fact that she endorsed an anti-abortion terrorist group	TexasBushwhacker	Mar 2022	#20
And as bad as the Handmaid is - she's far from the worst in today's Extreme Court	peppertree	Mar 2022	#22
Her qualification, I am afraid to say, is in the eyes of the beholder, she is perfect for repubs.	Escurumbele	Mar 2022	#27
You could add "unscrupulous" to the description.	BobTheSubgenius	Mar 2022	#29
Supremacy	Goonch	Mar 2022	#30
Pack the effing courts already!	BlueWavePsych	Mar 2022	#31

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 03:00 PM

DURHAM D (32,049 posts)

1. Clarence Thomas was not qualified either.

Has anyone done this type of thing on him?

Reply to this post

Response to DURHAM D (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 03:19 PM

RamblingRose (914 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to RamblingRose (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 03:24 PM

erronis (12,094 posts)

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

Response to RamblingRose (Reply #4)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 05:09 PM

niyad (96,564 posts)

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

here.

Reply to this post

Response to DURHAM D (Reply #1)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 03:49 PM

JHB (36,108 posts)

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

Response to JHB (Reply #12)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:03 PM

ShazzieB (9,602 posts)

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

Last edited Sun Mar 27, 2022, 05:52 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

Response to ShazzieB (Reply #15)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:15 PM

IronLionZion (41,442 posts)

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

Response to IronLionZion (Reply #16)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 06:50 PM

JHB (36,108 posts)

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

Response to DURHAM D (Reply #1)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 10:31 AM

appmanga (319 posts)

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

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 03:14 PM

Thunderbeast (2,723 posts)

2. Yeah but the BABIES!

F#@kin' Christfosciests!

Reply to this post

Response to Thunderbeast (Reply #2)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 03:26 PM

DinahMoeHum (21,043 posts)

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

. . .she gets pregnant.

Reply to this post

Response to DinahMoeHum (Reply #7)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:15 PM

SergeStorms (18,065 posts)

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

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 03:14 PM

milestogo (14,182 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to milestogo (Reply #3)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 05:45 PM

peppertree (18,283 posts)

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

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 03:23 PM

Demovictory9 (29,734 posts)

5. K&r

Reply to this post

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 03:29 PM

usonian (3,840 posts)

8. Saw this earlier. On DU?

Ivy League?

Reply to this post

Response to usonian (Reply #8)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 03:52 PM

H2O Man (70,572 posts)

13. +1

Reply to this post

Response to usonian (Reply #8)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 11:03 AM

Calista241 (5,469 posts)

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

Response to Calista241 (Reply #32)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 12:03 PM

usonian (3,840 posts)

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

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 03:30 PM

Hugin (31,217 posts)

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

Critical jurisprudence.

Reply to this post

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 03:30 PM

marieo1 (1,384 posts)

10. uNQUALIFIED

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

Reply to this post

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 03:47 PM

onenote (39,015 posts)

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

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 03:53 PM

Skittles (147,653 posts)

14. she is a repuke hack

nothing more

Reply to this post

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:19 PM

walkingman (5,437 posts)

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

Reply to this post

Response to walkingman (Reply #18)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 05:58 PM

PoliticAverse (26,366 posts)

25. The Federalist Society really. n/t

Reply to this post

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 04:29 PM

PoliticAverse (26,366 posts)

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

Response to PoliticAverse (Reply #19)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 05:54 PM

onenote (39,015 posts)

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

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 05:02 PM

TexasBushwhacker (18,639 posts)

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

Which she did not mention in her application.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/14/anti-abortion-group-indiana-amy-coney-barrett

Reply to this post

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Sun Mar 27, 2022, 05:43 PM

peppertree (18,283 posts)

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

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 10:30 AM

Escurumbele (2,762 posts)

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

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 10:37 AM

BobTheSubgenius (11,340 posts)

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

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 10:46 AM

Goonch (2,652 posts)

30. Supremacy

Reply to this post

Response to 634-5789 (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2022, 10:59 AM

BlueWavePsych (2,416 posts)

31. Pack the effing courts already!

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)