Posted on 01/26/2022 2:52:56 PM PST by gattaca
Very possible. They said it would have to be a black woman, and she seems to qualify. At least she doesn’t appear to be trans, so I guess that’s something to be grateful for.
Many people thought he’d pick Kamala just to get rid of her, but her black credentials are pretty shaky and I don’t think anybody wants to go there. Kamala appeared on a list of the top successful Indian-Americans, and since she was brought up in Toronto in the Indian community there, I’d say that’s where she belongs. Black people, including her own slightly black Jamaican father, have not embraced her.
So that still means they have to figure out a way to palm off Kamala...LOL!
Well, I am holding out for Stacey Abrams. We need a dumb-arse black woman to counterbalance the Wise-Latina.
Aren’t there any disabled transgender “female origin” blacks around?
Not black, sorry.
What gets me is when you appoint a double/triple/quadruple minority from among all the possible candidates, it’s supposed to prove that said that people from said d/t/q group are just as capable and qualified as anyone. Great, bravo.
But if you select that person BECAUSE they are from that group—to the exclusion of all others—you haven’t proven anything.
If she is an enemy of white people she is an easy approval by the US Senate.
No loss on the balance of the court. It is a liberal replacing a liberal.
Re: Aren’t there any disabled transgender “female origin” blacks around?
Going on appearances, Stacy Abrams sorta kinda maybe fills that bill.
“Garland himself is too old (69) and too centrist...”
Only compared to Adolf Eichmann
The leftist bloc on SCOTUS is a mindless bloc with no depth or independence. This changes nothing.
You do know its Obama in he White House right?
Too much common sense.
Abrams is a corpulent hambeast. Only 48, she's already got a foot in the grave due to her gluttony. Ten years from now, she'll have a lot of health problems.
She was already approved last April 53-44 for Merrick Garland's vacated seat on the United States Court of Appeals.
It will not be Ketanji Brown Jackson this time because there is a college admissions affirmative action case scheduled to be heard in the Fall SCOTUS session. Harvard is on of the defendants and KBJ is on the Harvard Board of Trustees. She would have to recuse herself leaving the court split 6-2. To save discriminatory admissions practices 2 conservatives would have to vote in favor of discriminating against Asians and white applicants. That would save the status quo but not count as a precedent. It is inevitable the courts will eventually have to sunset affirmative action but having it happen shortly after a Roe v Wade reversal would be a Democrat defeat on par with the Axis losing the Battle of Stalingrad and El Alamein on the same day.
Kentaji???? REALLY???? KENTAJI??
I’m confused. Are we allowed to have men on the bench anymore?
It doesn’t really seem it.
She will not recuse herself just like Kagan did not recuse herself over Obamacare. She’s a leftist ideologue like Kagan.
These people do not do tradition, civility, or legality for that matter.
“Abrams is a corpulent hambeast. Only 48, she’s already got a foot in the grave due to her gluttony. Ten years from now, she’ll have a lot of health problems.”
And that’s a bad thing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.