Republicans are not going to go full Thomas/Kavanaugh on anyone Biden nominates. That is Democrat level of gutter politics.

Second, since it will be a black female, there is no way they are going to do anything to give the media additional reasons to play the race card, which they will do anytime a Republican asks an even remotely hard question of the nominee.

Finally, the Democrats will probably get 3-5 Republicans to vote with them, Romney, Collins, Murkowski, Burr (retiring), are the most likely.

Oh the media talking point today is that by nominating the first black woman to the Court, Biden is going to "turn around" his presidency and help the Democrats win the midterms.

Biden should think big and nominate Stacey Abrams.

justcallmeharry said:

---

Biden should think big and nominate Stacey Abrams.

---

Good chance it will be her sister.

If you are a black woman in this country and have minimal intelligence, it must be nice to know that you can get whatever you want by literally just showing up and being a black female. Get to say or do whatever you want without repercussion.

What an amazing amount of power.

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

kag00 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ooof! In an election year?

---

New person will be confirmed by end of Feb. They know the senate is likely lost in Nov and won't wait. It will be the smoothest confirmation in history with glowing press coverage and demonization of anyone who questions anything.

---

February would pretty damn quick. I'm thinking confirmation hearings in late March or April at the earliest.

---

He's retiring at the end of the term, so not until June.

---

Biden needs to nominate someone, then they need the FBI check, then the nominee makes the rounds meeting with the Senators before Schumer will allow Nadler to schedule confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee.

---

Sorry, late getting through this but, if harris is nominated for the court, does she get to bypass all the fbi check and senate meetings? Curious, as it seems that might be a way to speed up the dems process and then we get the pig in the pantsuits as vp...
and boom, the vegetable gets sick...

Quote:

---

before Schumer will allow Nadler to schedule confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee.

---

I know Nadler is a big man, but he is not big enough to be in both house and senate.

Durbin is senate judiciary head

Glenlivet said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

kag00 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ooof! In an election year?

---

New person will be confirmed by end of Feb. They know the senate is likely lost in Nov and won't wait. It will be the smoothest confirmation in history with glowing press coverage and demonization of anyone who questions anything.

---

February would pretty damn quick. I'm thinking confirmation hearings in late March or April at the earliest.

---

He's retiring at the end of the term, so not until June.

---

Biden needs to nominate someone, then they need the FBI check, then the nominee makes the rounds meeting with the Senators before Schumer will allow Nadler to schedule confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee.

---

Sorry, late getting through this but, if harris is nominated for the court, does she get to bypass all the fbi check and senate meetings? Curious, as it seems that might be a way to speed up the dems process and then we get the pig in the pantsuits as vp...
and boom, the vegetable gets sick...

---

Up to the judiciary committee whether they will follow their rules or not. Most of the action or nonaction as the case may be, will be in the evenly divided senate judiciary committee.

aggiehawg said:

---

Ooof! In an election year?

---

Not just that, new SCOTUS pick AND Jackson vs Dobbs ruling. Get ready for this to be fun.

Sully Dog said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ooof! In an election year?

---

Not just that, new SCOTUS pick AND Jackson vs Dobbs ruling. Get ready for this to be fun.

---

When Scalia died, there was some real concern that Obama would try to make a recess appointment and actions were taken to keep the Senate in a pro forma session as a result. War Damn Turtle thwarted that from even being an option.

But that's not applicable here unless Breyer keels over or steps down immediately.

aggiehawg said:

---

Glenlivet said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

kag00 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ooof! In an election year?

---

New person will be confirmed by end of Feb. They know the senate is likely lost in Nov and won't wait. It will be the smoothest confirmation in history with glowing press coverage and demonization of anyone who questions anything.

---

February would pretty damn quick. I'm thinking confirmation hearings in late March or April at the earliest.

---

He's retiring at the end of the term, so not until June.

---

Biden needs to nominate someone, then they need the FBI check, then the nominee makes the rounds meeting with the Senators before Schumer will allow Nadler to schedule confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee.

---

Sorry, late getting through this but, if harris is nominated for the court, does she get to bypass all the fbi check and senate meetings? Curious, as it seems that might be a way to speed up the dems process and then we get the pig in the pantsuits as vp...
and boom, the vegetable gets sick...

---

Up to the judiciary committee whether they will follow their rules or not. Most of the action or nonaction as the case may be, will be in the evenly divided senate judiciary committee.

---

The judiciary though is just…50/50, so they still need a GOP vote there. Of course, Schumer could bring it up to the floor, anyway, but to do that…he has to invoke cloture, as by normal rules it is not a nomination yet, so…theoretically the GOP could filibuster it. The difference is that now vs. ACB, the 50/50 agreement to committees due to the split, so it could be prevented from Harris voting for herself in a true floor vote.

I had started a thread on identifying quality candidates that fit his strict black woman requirements. For some reason it was deleted. I guess TA does not want anyone helping Joe out.

Well is Breyer retiring or not? Heard he was meeting with Biden today. Wonder if Ol' Joe will remember?

nortex97 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Glenlivet said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

kag00 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ooof! In an election year?

---

New person will be confirmed by end of Feb. They know the senate is likely lost in Nov and won't wait. It will be the smoothest confirmation in history with glowing press coverage and demonization of anyone who questions anything.

---

February would pretty damn quick. I'm thinking confirmation hearings in late March or April at the earliest.

---

He's retiring at the end of the term, so not until June.

---

Biden needs to nominate someone, then they need the FBI check, then the nominee makes the rounds meeting with the Senators before Schumer will allow Nadler to schedule confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee.

---

Sorry, late getting through this but, if harris is nominated for the court, does she get to bypass all the fbi check and senate meetings? Curious, as it seems that might be a way to speed up the dems process and then we get the pig in the pantsuits as vp...
and boom, the vegetable gets sick...

---

Up to the judiciary committee whether they will follow their rules or not. Most of the action or nonaction as the case may be, will be in the evenly divided senate judiciary committee.

---

The judiciary though is just…50/50, so they still need a GOP vote there. Of course, Schumer could bring it up to the floor, anyway, but to do that…he has to invoke cloture, as by normal rules it is not a nomination yet, so…theoretically the GOP could filibuster it. The difference is that now vs. ACB, the 50/50 agreement to committees due to the split, so it could be prevented from Harris voting for herself in a true floor vote.

---

Exactly. There are a lot of machinations that could be utilized by McConnell and Grassley. To me, they will resort to those if Biden completely by-passes the GOP senators in making his selection. Although relatively recent development, there has been a protocol in which lists of potential nominees are circulated before the final nomination is made. That was in response to W.s disastrous nomination of Harriet Miers.

CanyonAg77 said:

---

Well, if the new nominee is alleged to have raped someone as a teenager, it won't be a liability, but rather a resume enhancement, because things are (D)ifferent now.

---

They'll spin it Michael Scott style for sure.

nortex97 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Glenlivet said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

kag00 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ooof! In an election year?

---

New person will be confirmed by end of Feb. They know the senate is likely lost in Nov and won't wait. It will be the smoothest confirmation in history with glowing press coverage and demonization of anyone who questions anything.

---

February would pretty damn quick. I'm thinking confirmation hearings in late March or April at the earliest.

---

He's retiring at the end of the term, so not until June.

---

Biden needs to nominate someone, then they need the FBI check, then the nominee makes the rounds meeting with the Senators before Schumer will allow Nadler to schedule confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee.

---

Sorry, late getting through this but, if harris is nominated for the court, does she get to bypass all the fbi check and senate meetings? Curious, as it seems that might be a way to speed up the dems process and then we get the pig in the pantsuits as vp...
and boom, the vegetable gets sick...

---

Up to the judiciary committee whether they will follow their rules or not. Most of the action or nonaction as the case may be, will be in the evenly divided senate judiciary committee.

---

The judiciary though is just…50/50, so they still need a GOP vote there. Of course, Schumer could bring it up to the floor, anyway, but to do that…he has to invoke cloture, as by normal rules it is not a nomination yet, so…theoretically the GOP could filibuster it. The difference is that now vs. ACB, the 50/50 agreement to committees due to the split, so it could be prevented from Harris voting for herself in a true floor vote.

---

Have you looked at who is on the Judiciary Committee?

Chuck Grassley
Lindsey Graham
John Cornyn
Mike Lee
Ted Cruz
Ben Sasse,
Josh Hawley
Tom Cotton
John Kennedy
Thom Tillis
Marsha Blackburn

Half of them could easily vote for whoever Biden nominates when it comes to the committee approval, then vote against in the full Senate when it is meaningless.

Why does Joe hate indigenous peoples? Why are we adding a second black person to the court when there are no indigenous peoples on the court and viable candidates exist?!

Well, let's face it, Biden's not making the nomination. Valerie Jarret and Ron Klein are. Biden himself doesn't even know who Breyer is.

If Barry Sotero was the first 'clean, articulate well spoken black' man he ever met, then how many such black women has he met?

PredictIt betting odds for SCOTUS nominee. It is obvious that the the Dems are expected to nominate someone solely based on the quality of their character and not the color of their skin.

K Brown Jackson - $65c
Leondra Kruger - $23c
J Michelle Childs - $14c
Kamala Harris - $2c
C. Jackson-Akiwumi - $1c

Even Biden knows she's a moron. Simply stunning how shallow the bench is in the Democrat party. Just look back at the 2020 front runners: The Big Guy, Knee Pads, Fake Indian, Bernie the communist, and the Mayor are all intellectual lightweights to put it lightly.

Sasse and Tillis are real question marks, I agree (especially if Trump mouths off early), but Biden has this great ability to unify Republicans in opposition to his idiocy, so I dunno. He could pick someone so ridiculously unqualified/dumb (he prefers to nominate/work with women in particular who are dumber than he is), the GOP decides to force Chuck to go nuclear over it. I admit it's tough to see, but would think it's around a 50/50 shot given the track record.

Think about his abysmal picks that have failed to even unify Dems; Chipman, Omarova, Neera Tanden etc. These were not hard to see as terrible picks, even by Dem senators, let alone republicans. Now, in limiting himself exclusively to black females, we are talking about a pool of only 10 percent of the country, or really about 10 who are perhaps 'highly qualified.' (As in, are appellate judges who are hard left democrat partisans etc).

Rapier108 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Glenlivet said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

kag00 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ooof! In an election year?

---

New person will be confirmed by end of Feb. They know the senate is likely lost in Nov and won't wait. It will be the smoothest confirmation in history with glowing press coverage and demonization of anyone who questions anything.

---

February would pretty damn quick. I'm thinking confirmation hearings in late March or April at the earliest.

---

He's retiring at the end of the term, so not until June.

---

Biden needs to nominate someone, then they need the FBI check, then the nominee makes the rounds meeting with the Senators before Schumer will allow Nadler to schedule confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee.

---

Sorry, late getting through this but, if harris is nominated for the court, does she get to bypass all the fbi check and senate meetings? Curious, as it seems that might be a way to speed up the dems process and then we get the pig in the pantsuits as vp...
and boom, the vegetable gets sick...

---

Up to the judiciary committee whether they will follow their rules or not. Most of the action or nonaction as the case may be, will be in the evenly divided senate judiciary committee.

---

The judiciary though is just…50/50, so they still need a GOP vote there. Of course, Schumer could bring it up to the floor, anyway, but to do that…he has to invoke cloture, as by normal rules it is not a nomination yet, so…theoretically the GOP could filibuster it. The difference is that now vs. ACB, the 50/50 agreement to committees due to the split, so it could be prevented from Harris voting for herself in a true floor vote.

---

Have you looked at who is on the Judiciary Committee?

Chuck Grassley
Lindsey Graham
John Cornyn
Mike Lee
Ted Cruz
Ben Sasse,
Josh Hawley
Tom Cotton
John Kennedy
Thom Tillis
Marsha Blackburn

Half of them could easily vote for whoever Biden nominates when it comes to the committee approval, then vote against in the full Senate when it is meaningless.

---

I have zero faith that Graham or Cronyn will suddenly discover a spine.

Rapier108 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Glenlivet said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

kag00 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ooof! In an election year?

---

New person will be confirmed by end of Feb. They know the senate is likely lost in Nov and won't wait. It will be the smoothest confirmation in history with glowing press coverage and demonization of anyone who questions anything.

---

February would pretty damn quick. I'm thinking confirmation hearings in late March or April at the earliest.

---

He's retiring at the end of the term, so not until June.

---

Biden needs to nominate someone, then they need the FBI check, then the nominee makes the rounds meeting with the Senators before Schumer will allow Nadler to schedule confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee.

---

Sorry, late getting through this but, if harris is nominated for the court, does she get to bypass all the fbi check and senate meetings? Curious, as it seems that might be a way to speed up the dems process and then we get the pig in the pantsuits as vp...
and boom, the vegetable gets sick...

---

Up to the judiciary committee whether they will follow their rules or not. Most of the action or nonaction as the case may be, will be in the evenly divided senate judiciary committee.

---

The judiciary though is just…50/50, so they still need a GOP vote there. Of course, Schumer could bring it up to the floor, anyway, but to do that…he has to invoke cloture, as by normal rules it is not a nomination yet, so…theoretically the GOP could filibuster it. The difference is that now vs. ACB, the 50/50 agreement to committees due to the split, so it could be prevented from Harris voting for herself in a true floor vote.

---

Have you looked at who is on the Judiciary Committee?

Chuck Grassley
Lindsey Graham
John Cornyn
Mike Lee
Ted Cruz
Ben Sasse,
Josh Hawley
Tom Cotton
John Kennedy
Thom Tillis
Marsha Blackburn

Half of them could easily vote for whoever Biden nominates when it comes to the committee approval, then vote against in the full Senate when it is meaningless.

---

My biggest concern is Tillis since he's not running for reelection, he's quitting. But after Sotomayor, for whom he votes, he has vowed not to give that same amount of deference to a POTUS nomination. I think between Grassley and McConnell, they can keep Lindsey in line, if that is the call here.

I'm fine with applying all the pressure that can be brought to bear if Biden picks some raving lunatic. But, I don't really see the point of trying to derail a nomination just because Biden picks a liberal. We aren't going to hold that seat open for 2.5 years waiting for a Republican president. If Biden picks someone outrageous, hold it up in committee, but if it's just a quota pick of an archetypal liberal judge, I'm not seeing much point in derailing such a nomination.

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Glenlivet said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

kag00 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ooof! In an election year?

---

New person will be confirmed by end of Feb. They know the senate is likely lost in Nov and won't wait. It will be the smoothest confirmation in history with glowing press coverage and demonization of anyone who questions anything.

---

February would pretty damn quick. I'm thinking confirmation hearings in late March or April at the earliest.

---

He's retiring at the end of the term, so not until June.

---

Biden needs to nominate someone, then they need the FBI check, then the nominee makes the rounds meeting with the Senators before Schumer will allow Nadler to schedule confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee.

---

Sorry, late getting through this but, if harris is nominated for the court, does she get to bypass all the fbi check and senate meetings? Curious, as it seems that might be a way to speed up the dems process and then we get the pig in the pantsuits as vp...
and boom, the vegetable gets sick...

---

Up to the judiciary committee whether they will follow their rules or not. Most of the action or nonaction as the case may be, will be in the evenly divided senate judiciary committee.

---

The judiciary though is just…50/50, so they still need a GOP vote there. Of course, Schumer could bring it up to the floor, anyway, but to do that…he has to invoke cloture, as by normal rules it is not a nomination yet, so…theoretically the GOP could filibuster it. The difference is that now vs. ACB, the 50/50 agreement to committees due to the split, so it could be prevented from Harris voting for herself in a true floor vote.

---

Have you looked at who is on the Judiciary Committee?

Chuck Grassley
Lindsey Graham
John Cornyn
Mike Lee
Ted Cruz
Ben Sasse,
Josh Hawley
Tom Cotton
John Kennedy
Thom Tillis
Marsha Blackburn

Half of them could easily vote for whoever Biden nominates when it comes to the committee approval, then vote against in the full Senate when it is meaningless.

---

My biggest concern is Tillis since he's not running for reelection, he's quitting. But after Sotomayor, for whom he votes, he has vowed not to give that same amount of deference to a POTUS nomination. I think between Grassley and McConnell, they can keep Lindsey in line, if that is the call here.

---

He was just re-elected in 2020. Are you thinking of Burr?

TRM said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Glenlivet said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Rapier108 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

kag00 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Ooof! In an election year?

---

New person will be confirmed by end of Feb. They know the senate is likely lost in Nov and won't wait. It will be the smoothest confirmation in history with glowing press coverage and demonization of anyone who questions anything.

---

February would pretty damn quick. I'm thinking confirmation hearings in late March or April at the earliest.

---

He's retiring at the end of the term, so not until June.

---

Biden needs to nominate someone, then they need the FBI check, then the nominee makes the rounds meeting with the Senators before Schumer will allow Nadler to schedule confirmation hearings before the Judiciary Committee.

---

Sorry, late getting through this but, if harris is nominated for the court, does she get to bypass all the fbi check and senate meetings? Curious, as it seems that might be a way to speed up the dems process and then we get the pig in the pantsuits as vp...
and boom, the vegetable gets sick...

---

Up to the judiciary committee whether they will follow their rules or not. Most of the action or nonaction as the case may be, will be in the evenly divided senate judiciary committee.

---

The judiciary though is just…50/50, so they still need a GOP vote there. Of course, Schumer could bring it up to the floor, anyway, but to do that…he has to invoke cloture, as by normal rules it is not a nomination yet, so…theoretically the GOP could filibuster it. The difference is that now vs. ACB, the 50/50 agreement to committees due to the split, so it could be prevented from Harris voting for herself in a true floor vote.

---

Have you looked at who is on the Judiciary Committee?

Chuck Grassley
Lindsey Graham
John Cornyn
Mike Lee
Ted Cruz
Ben Sasse,
Josh Hawley
Tom Cotton
John Kennedy
Thom Tillis
Marsha Blackburn

Half of them could easily vote for whoever Biden nominates when it comes to the committee approval, then vote against in the full Senate when it is meaningless.

---

My biggest concern is Tillis since he's not running for reelection, he's quitting. But after Sotomayor, for whom he votes, he has vowed not to give that same amount of deference to a POTUS nomination. I think between Grassley and McConnell, they can keep Lindsey in line, if that is the call here.

---

He was just re-elected in 2020. Are you thinking of Burr?

---

My bad. You are correct

At the very least drag them through the mud just like the Democrats did to Kav and ACB. Make sure the general public knows how wretched the nominee is if they're going to end up on the bench. The press won't tell the truth, so the blows need to come during the hearings. The good part is, since it's going to be a liberal, they won't have to make **** up like the Dems did about Kav. Should be plenty of degeneracy and stupidity to work with.

aggieforester05 said:

---

At the very least drag them through the mud just like the Democrats did to Kav and ACB. Make sure the general public knows how wretched the nominee is if they're going to end up on the bench. The press won't tell the truth, so the blows need to come during the hearings. The good part is, since it's going to be a liberal, they won't have to make **** up like the Dems did about Kav. Should be plenty of degeneracy and stupidity to work with.

---

Oh yes, I think the Republican can really have some fun with affirmative action questions, if Biden sticks to his promise.

twk said:

---

I'm fine with applying all the pressure that can be brought to bear if Biden picks some raving lunatic. But, I don't really see the point of trying to derail a nomination just because Biden picks a liberal. We aren't going to hold that seat open for 2.5 years waiting for a Republican president. If Biden picks someone outrageous, hold it up in committee, but if it's just a quota pick of an archetypal liberal judge, I'm not seeing much point in derailing such a nomination.

---

It doesn't need to be open that long. Biden can always yank the nomination and go to someone else. Reagan had to do that three times before he could get a nominee through. (Bork, then Doug Ginsberg, then Anthony Kennedy)

But here's something interesting. It was the liberal legal academics that stated the VP is not authorized to cast a vote to split a tie on a SCOTUS nomination.

Quote:

---

On September 23, 2020, when the issue was Amy Coney Barrett's nomination, Alan Dershowitz argued:

Quote:

---

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 nomineewhoever she may bewe 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.

---

On that same date, liberal Harvard Professor Lawrence Tribe argued no such tie-breaking vote could be cast:

Quote:

---

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.

---

---

Link

there has been (at least) one judicial nominee tie broken by VP

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jonathan-kobes-becomes-first-federal-judge-in-u-s-history-confirmed-by-tiebreaker-in-the-senate/

its a fascinating law school question, but in practice don't think it would matter. who would have standing to challenge and when would the case be ripe? I'd think you'd need to lose a case at supreme court 5-4 with her as deciding vote. even then, what are chances the rest of SCOTUS would agree to kick her off?

It would be hilarious if Republicans stuck together and drug this into November/a new Senate. 1 in 99 change, yeah, and he'd still get someone through eventually, but I think it would be worth it as payback to the CCP-Dem scum running the country right now. Fact check; absolutely worth it.

Quote:

---

On Wednesday, appearing on MSNBC, Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) said she would like Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer's replacement to "consider the impact … on people in our country so that they are not making decisions just based on" the law.

Hirono stated, "What I'm looking for is a justice who can be fair and impartial and who does not have an ideological axe to grind, which is what we saw as far as I'm concerned in President Trump's nominees, including to the Supreme Court."

---

Quote:

---

"So, yes, I am expecting a fight, but there you have it," she continued, then said, "And I'm looking for someone who's going to be, not only highly qualified, as all of the people that you already talked about are, but who really brings to the judiciary the kind of diversity that I'd like, that someone who will consider the impact, the effects of whatever decision-making is on people in our country so that they are not making decisions just based on," here she pointed out her desire for the "effects," digressing, "which I would like them to base it on," before returning to "law."

---

Link

I hate that idiotic woman.

I missed it, but dumb joint announcement.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/stephen-breyer-biden-retirement-announcement/h_26c8f4b4d9826f528ad701518ae11ab5

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/stephen-breyer-biden-retirement-announcement/h_4a1e08b7e78a3a4cfa464518a7b7ede8

Quote:

---

McConnell on Justice Breyer's Announced Retirement
BENTON, KY U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) issued the following statement on the announced retirement of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer:

"I congratulate Justice Breyer on nearly three decades of thoughtful and consequential service on the Supreme Court, capping forty-plus years of total service on the federal bench.
"Justice Breyer commands respect and affection across the legal world, including from those who disagree with his judicial philosophy and conclusions in cases. This respect is rooted in Justice Breyer's intelligence, rigor, and good-faith scholarly engagement. By all accounts, both personally and professionally, he has rendered exemplary service on our nation's highest Court.

"Justice Breyer's commitment to the importance of a nonpartisan, non-politicized judiciary has been especially admirable. Even in the face of undue criticism from the modern political left, Justice Breyer has remained a principled voice against destructive proposals such as partisan court-packing that would shatter public trust in the rule of law.

"I congratulate Justice Breyer, his wife Joanna, their children, and their entire family as the Breyers prepare to close this remarkable chapter and begin the next.

***

"Looking ahead the American people elected a Senate that is evenly split at 50-50. To the degree that President Biden received a mandate, it was to govern from the middle, steward our institutions, and unite America.

"The President must not outsource this important decision to the radical left. The American people deserve a nominee with demonstrated reverence for the written text of our laws and our Constitution."

---

81 million

At the end of his event, Biden handed Justice Breyer his mask, which Breyer then put in his pocket, and Biden walked away maskless.

Amazing how clueless this man is. pic.twitter.com/6F1QhwkRxT

— Caleb Hull (@CalebJHull) January 27, 2022