SCOTUS

[seacoaster]

A local radio host said this on his show just a few minutes ago. This may infuriate some of you FLP folks out there but here goes. In RBGs 40 year legal career she only had one black person that ever worked for her. I am not passing judgement. I am just repeating what I just heard. If it is true it does not reflect very well on a liberal icon.

It's incorrect, she's had at least one African American clerk, as well as other non-whites.

I do think the term "liberal icon" is bit of a misnomer, albeit I do understand and accept it. It would be more accurate to say that she's a women's and gender equality icon.

It doesn't infuriate me, because it is the usual outcome determinative BS that the right (Ed Whelan, professional hack) offers to a public that won't bother checking. Check the list of her clerks here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... s_(Seat_6)

A largely phony right-wing narrative, which, naturally, focuses on the paucity of the "black people" to advance the narrative, overlooking the reality of the entirety. But sure, she hated black folks.

[jhu72]

A local radio host said this on his show just a few minutes ago. This may infuriate some of you FLP folks out there but here goes. In RBGs 40 year legal career she only had one black person that ever worked for her. I am not passing judgement. I am just repeating what I just heard. If it is true it does not reflect very well on a liberal icon.

I have no idea whether that is true or not. There are those inside and outside her fan base who have made the argument that she may have not been so liberal in some of her positions. This is not new or news. Clowns like Goebbels think she was the most liberal judge on the current court, she was not. She was a remarkable person who was by in large a single issue advocate - she was for the emancipation of women in all its forms. From where I sit, everything else seems to have taken a backseat. That was and remains a big enough problem that is worthy of concentration.

[cradleandshoot]

A local radio host said this on his show just a few minutes ago. This may infuriate some of you FLP folks out there but here goes. In RBGs 40 year legal career she only had one black person that ever worked for her. I am not passing judgement. I am just repeating what I just heard. If it is true it does not reflect very well on a liberal icon.

It's incorrect, she's had at least one African American clerk, as well as other non-whites.

I do think the term "liberal icon" is bit of a misnomer, albeit I do understand and accept it. It would be more accurate to say that she's a women's and gender equality icon.

It doesn't infuriate me, because it is the usual outcome determinative BS that the right (Ed Whelan, professional hack) offers to a public that won't bother checking. Check the list of her clerks here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... s_(Seat_6)

A largely phony right-wing narrative, which, naturally, focuses on the paucity of the "black people" to advance the narrative, overlooking the reality of the entirety. But sure, she hated black folks.

I tried your link coaster. It starts out begging for money
I went no further. I am not talking about a right wing narrative. I only posted what I heard from a source who does not misinform his audience. I have no idea if he is correct or not. I expect the fanlax fact checkers will be in full gear in this.

[jhu72]

A local radio host said this on his show just a few minutes ago. This may infuriate some of you FLP folks out there but here goes. In RBGs 40 year legal career she only had one black person that ever worked for her. I am not passing judgement. I am just repeating what I just heard. If it is true it does not reflect very well on a liberal icon.

It's incorrect, she's had at least one African American clerk, as well as other non-whites.

I do think the term "liberal icon" is bit of a misnomer, albeit I do understand and accept it. It would be more accurate to say that she's a women's and gender equality icon.

It doesn't infuriate me, because it is the usual outcome determinative BS that the right (Ed Whelan, professional hack) offers to a public that won't bother checking. Check the list of her clerks here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... s_(Seat_6)

A largely phony right-wing narrative, which, naturally, focuses on the paucity of the "black people" to advance the narrative, overlooking the reality of the entirety. But sure, she hated black folks.

I tried your link coaster. It starts out begging for money
I went no further. I am not talking about a right wing narrative. I only posted what I heard from a source who does not misinform his audience. I have no idea if he is correct or not. I expect the fanlax fact checkers will be in full gear in this.

I will taken Seacoaster's word for it. It has been researched.

[holmes435]

The radio host said she only had one black person work for her in 40 years. I was surprised when he said it but he is normally very thorough about what he reports on his show. As a matter of fact, he was surprised as well. If he was wrong I am sure he will catch holy hell from his audience. I am sure the record will be fact checked on this forum.

If true, she's similar to virtually every other Justice over the past 40 years as there are very few black clerks period. Hispanics are even more underrepresented overall. RGB did seem to hire ~50% women while only about 25% of overall clerks are women.

Here's an interesting article on the subject from a few years ago that discusses a little bit on why there are so few black and hispanic clerks - https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 965945001/

Gorsuch and Sotamayor seem to hire the most racial minorities, so good on them. Doesn't look like many minorities apply or get recommended by feeder judges in the first place.

[Peter Brown]

A local radio host said this on his show just a few minutes ago. This may infuriate some of you FLP folks out there but here goes. In RBGs 40 year legal career she only had one black person that ever worked for her. I am not passing judgement. I am just repeating what I just heard. If it is true it does not reflect very well on a liberal icon.

It's incorrect, she's had at least one African American clerk, as well as other non-whites.

I do think the term "liberal icon" is bit of a misnomer, albeit I do understand and accept it. It would be more accurate to say that she's a women's and gender equality icon.

It doesn't infuriate me, because it is the usual outcome determinative BS that the right (Ed Whelan, professional hack) offers to a public that won't bother checking. Check the list of her clerks here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... s_(Seat_6)

A largely phony right-wing narrative, which, naturally, focuses on the paucity of the "black people" to advance the narrative, overlooking the reality of the entirety. But sure, she hated black folks.

I tried your link coaster. It starts out begging for money
I went no further. I am not talking about a right wing narrative. I only posted what I heard from a source who does not misinform his audience. I have no idea if he is correct or not. I expect the fanlax fact checkers will be in full gear in this.

I will taken Seacoaster's word for it. It has been researched.

How about Paul Butler’s (Georgetown U law professor, black) word? Cause he says seacoster is wrong. She hired one black clerk her entire career.

Libs: so as I say, not as I do.

(Everyone ready for all night rioting in Louisville?)

[MDlaxfan76]

A local radio host said this on his show just a few minutes ago. This may infuriate some of you FLP folks out there but here goes. In RBGs 40 year legal career she only had one black person that ever worked for her. I am not passing judgement. I am just repeating what I just heard. If it is true it does not reflect very well on a liberal icon.

It's incorrect, she's had at least one African American clerk, as well as other non-whites.

I do think the term "liberal icon" is bit of a misnomer, albeit I do understand and accept it. It would be more accurate to say that she's a women's and gender equality icon.

The radio host said she only had one black person work for her in 40 years. I was surprised when he said it but he is normally very thorough about what he reports on his show. As a matter of fact, he was surprised as well. If he was wrong I am sure he will catch holy hell from his audience. I am sure the record will be fact checked on this forum.

my error, I read too quickly...yes, one African American...but others of color as well. Not sure one could make some sort of negative case out of that, at least not fairly relative to others on the Court over that long period of time.

Lots of women over the years, unsurprisingly. In that dimension, she was way, way ahead of her colleagues.

To please my far right friends on here, allow me to include that it would be fair to say that Kavanaugh has made a big effort to have a highly diverse set of clerks, significantly more so than the Court as a whole. Very substantial effort.

[seacoaster]

A local radio host said this on his show just a few minutes ago. This may infuriate some of you FLP folks out there but here goes. In RBGs 40 year legal career she only had one black person that ever worked for her. I am not passing judgement. I am just repeating what I just heard. If it is true it does not reflect very well on a liberal icon.

It's incorrect, she's had at least one African American clerk, as well as other non-whites.

I do think the term "liberal icon" is bit of a misnomer, albeit I do understand and accept it. It would be more accurate to say that she's a women's and gender equality icon.

It doesn't infuriate me, because it is the usual outcome determinative BS that the right (Ed Whelan, professional hack) offers to a public that won't bother checking. Check the list of her clerks here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... s_(Seat_6)

A largely phony right-wing narrative, which, naturally, focuses on the paucity of the "black people" to advance the narrative, overlooking the reality of the entirety. But sure, she hated black folks.

I tried your link coaster. It starts out begging for money
I went no further. I am not talking about a right wing narrative. I only posted what I heard from a source who does not misinform his audience. I have no idea if he is correct or not. I expect the fanlax fact checkers will be in full gear in this.

Good effort.

She has hired about 50% women; this shouldn't surprise as this was her life's mission. She has hired numerous -- I'm not counting any more than you are giving Wikipedia $$! -- Asian-Americans and other people who are "non-white." Your radio friend is quoting an article that identifies one "black" guy and uses it for effect. So you are "talking about" and forwarding a right wing narrative.

For the record, we should add -- and agree -- that these clerkships are perhaps the biggest plums in the profession, and becoming one is ordinarily the result of a brutal and serious merits based competition.

[seacoaster]

An opinion:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/opin ... b2fa3c98f0

"It was almost inevitable that President Trump would get one Supreme Court appointment during this four-year term. It was always possible that he’d get two.

But three? Seldom has a president’s impact been so inversely proportional to his warrant. Trump, with his nonexistent mandate, reaches extra far and wreaks extra damage. That’s what makes his reign so perverse. That’s the special hell of it.

Almost instantly after the news of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, I checked how many Supreme Court justices Trump’s immediate predecessors had appointed, because I knew how fast he and Mitch McConnell would move to fill her seat. When it comes to this sort of unabashed power grab, they’re conjoined twins, connected by their contempt for fools who get hung up on hypocrisy and prattle about fairness.

Here, in reverse chronological order, are the five men who occupied the Oval Office over the roughly three decades before Trump took his seat at the Resolute Desk, and their impact on the court:

President Barack Obama appointed two Supreme Court justices: Sonia Sotomayor and then Elena Kagan. That was over two terms, both of which were secured with wide-margin victories in the popular vote as well as the Electoral College.

Obama would have had a third appointment, but Mitch McConnell, of course, blocked that nominee, Merrick Garland, decreeing that a court vacancy nearly nine months before the election should not be filled until afterward, so that the American people could have a fresh chance to weigh in.

Ginsburg died a month and a half before Election Day, and Trump, unlike Obama, took office with the support of a minority of Americans: He got nearly three million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. No matter! McConnell has had some sort of reformation or revelation and decided that this present is in no way analogous to that past. Just ask Lindsey Graham, who had the same epiphany.

President George W. Bush also got just two Supreme Court justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, but again, over two terms. President Bill Clinton? Same. (He appointed Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.)

President George H.W. Bush got two (David Souter and Clarence Thomas) in one term. President Ronald Reagan got three (Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy) in two terms.

So if Trump succeeds in replacing Ginsburg before the election, he’ll match Reagan’s tally in half the time, with a mere fraction of the popular support and respect that the Gipper had. This is what I mean by perverse.

Yes, I know, some people — and some presidents — just get lucky. But no one gets luckier than Trump, and no one deserves it less.

And this particular bit of luck, like his presidency, illuminates a serious and possibly unsustainable flaw in the American political system. We’re increasingly a country where the minority is not merely protected from the tyranny of the majority, as the nation’s founders intended. We’re a country where the minority rules, and under Trump, it rules tyrannically.

McConnell is in a position to make Trump’s third court appointment happen because Republicans have a Senate majority, but they have that majority not because they command the support of a larger number of Americans than their Democratic counterparts do. They command the support of fewer.

In 2018, Democrats won 22 of the 35 Senate elections, with candidates who got roughly 17 million more votes than the Republican candidates got. (And I’m not even counting, among those 22, two independents who caucus with Democrats, Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.)

But the structure of the Senate — in which less-populous states get the same say and sway as much more populous ones — favors Republicans. As Philip Bump of The Washington Post observed this week, “The Senate has since 2014 been controlled by Republicans who cumulatively represent less than half of the country — the longest such stretch in a century.”

Trump is in a position to make that third court appointment because of the Electoral College. As I noted, he lost the popular vote. That does not make him an illegitimate president. But it does advance the argument that we’ve drifted too far from one person, one vote, and the Electoral College should be scrapped.

As things stand now, some handicappers theorize that Joe Biden might have to win the popular vote by more than five million ballots to be even remotely confident of an Electoral College victory. That, too, is perverse.

And here we are, on the cusp of a court that won’t represent what most Americans believe. Sure, the court isn’t supposed to be beholden to public opinion, but Americans’ faith in their institutions and feeling that their voices are heard might be strained even further by what seem to be lurches backward by a court forged in the hottest flares of partisan passion.

While we’ve been reminded several times recently of the folly of guessing how justices will vote, a court with three Trump appointees could well restrict abortion even though most Americans support its legality in all or most cases. Such a court could also revisit gay rights, though an even bigger majority of Americans support marriage equality and an overwhelming majority believe that gay Americans should be protected from employment discrimination. It could look anew at various aspects of voting rights and affirmative action.

Were this to happen, it wouldn’t be because a president with deep-seated convictions was expressing them through the court. Rather, the most brazen of opportunists is continuing the politicization of the court and bending it to his re-election. His deliberations seem to take into account not only which justice or justices might energize evangelical voters the most, but also whether potential nominees are from battleground states. (Judges from Florida, Michigan and North Carolina have been floated.)

On this front as on all others, Trump is propelled not by a genuinely felt vision for the country but by a genuinely insatiable ego. He’s a bully who likes to dominate — in any way available, to the fullest extent possible — and he’s running rampant, just for the adrenaline rush of it.

As Ashley Parker of The Washington Post reported this week, Trump gloated to Bob Woodward about how many judges he and McConnell had put on the federal bench and how much of that bench bore Trump’s imprint. “The only one that has a better percentage is George Washington, because he appointed 100 percent,” Trump told Woodward. “But my percentage is, you know, like, ridiculous.”

“Maybe they’ll put a statue of you outside the Supreme Court,” Woodward responded, joking.

“Oh, what a good idea,” Trump said. “I think I’ll have it erected tomorrow.”

[Peter Brown]

Frank Bruni grows more delicate and catty each year he ages.

Now the argument against 3 SCOTUS judges is 'no other president was that lucky, Trump must be stopped at all costs!!!!'

Great argument.

Democrats and their media henchmen are affronts and dangers to our society...there is no norm they are not willing to shatter.

Meanwhile they assemble in Louisville today, waiting to explode this evening. God help the poor small business owner in Louisville knowing the Louisville PD and National Guard have been instructed by their feckless democratic governor to stand down.

[njbill]

Nixon got to appoint four justices, all during his first term.

[seacoaster]

Nixon got to appoint four justices, all during his first term.

After carrying 32 states. I think the popular vote was close, but favored “Dick.”

[ggait]

A largely phony right-wing narrative, which, naturally, focuses on the paucity of the "black people" to advance the narrative, overlooking the reality of the entirety. But sure, she hated black folks.

Without doing any research, here's why this is almost certainly complete bull shirt.

To get a job as a SCOTUS clerk, you have to have the most heavily gold plated resume possible. Top undergrad credentials, maybe a Fulbright/Marshall/Rhodes Scholarship, single digit class rank from a top ten law school, law review editor, etc. etc. etc. My law school (top 10 but not HYS) does pretty well at this ultra competitive game - maybe 2 SCOTUS clerks for every three classes. My own class of 325 over-achievers produced two SCOTUS clerks -- which was considered a bumper crop as these things go. One was the #1 ranked student on grades. The other was editor-in-chief of the law review.

Black enrollment at the top 10 law schools is maybe 10% these days. And, quite rightly, a portion of that 10% gets in with an affirmative action break. So the law of small numbers is hard at work here. I seriously doubt that RBG's clerk demographics were unusual as compared to any of her peers.

But yeah. ACLU veteran RBG hated black folks and (according to some on here) really isn't that Jewish either.

[cradleandshoot]

A local radio host said this on his show just a few minutes ago. This may infuriate some of you FLP folks out there but here goes. In RBGs 40 year legal career she only had one black person that ever worked for her. I am not passing judgement. I am just repeating what I just heard. If it is true it does not reflect very well on a liberal icon.

It's incorrect, she's had at least one African American clerk, as well as other non-whites.

I do think the term "liberal icon" is bit of a misnomer, albeit I do understand and accept it. It would be more accurate to say that she's a women's and gender equality icon.

It doesn't infuriate me, because it is the usual outcome determinative BS that the right (Ed Whelan, professional hack) offers to a public that won't bother checking. Check the list of her clerks here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... s_(Seat_6)

A largely phony right-wing narrative, which, naturally, focuses on the paucity of the "black people" to advance the narrative, overlooking the reality of the entirety. But sure, she hated black folks.

I tried your link coaster. It starts out begging for money
I went no further. I am not talking about a right wing narrative. I only posted what I heard from a source who does not misinform his audience. I have no idea if he is correct or not. I expect the fanlax fact checkers will be in full gear in this.

Good effort.

She has hired about 50% women; this shouldn't surprise as this was her life's mission. She has hired numerous -- I'm not counting any more than you are giving Wikipedia $$! -- Asian-Americans and other people who are "non-white." Your radio friend is quoting an article that identifies one "black" guy and uses it for effect. So you are "talking about" and forwarding a right wing narrative.

For the record, we should add -- and agree -- that these clerkships are perhaps the biggest plums in the profession, and becoming one is ordinarily the result of a brutal and serious merits based competition.

Cut me a little slack coaster. I was driving to Country Max to buy some more dog food. I was not sitting at my lap top to do more digging.

[ggait]

To please my far right friends on here, allow me to include that it would be fair to say that Kavanaugh has made a big effort to have a highly diverse set of clerks, significantly more so than the Court as a whole. Very substantial effort.

Reports are that BK especially likes gal clerks who look a certain way.

Bros gonna Bro.

[seacoaster]

A local radio host said this on his show just a few minutes ago. This may infuriate some of you FLP folks out there but here goes. In RBGs 40 year legal career she only had one black person that ever worked for her. I am not passing judgement. I am just repeating what I just heard. If it is true it does not reflect very well on a liberal icon.

It's incorrect, she's had at least one African American clerk, as well as other non-whites.

I do think the term "liberal icon" is bit of a misnomer, albeit I do understand and accept it. It would be more accurate to say that she's a women's and gender equality icon.

It doesn't infuriate me, because it is the usual outcome determinative BS that the right (Ed Whelan, professional hack) offers to a public that won't bother checking. Check the list of her clerks here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... s_(Seat_6)

A largely phony right-wing narrative, which, naturally, focuses on the paucity of the "black people" to advance the narrative, overlooking the reality of the entirety. But sure, she hated black folks.

I tried your link coaster. It starts out begging for money
I went no further. I am not talking about a right wing narrative. I only posted what I heard from a source who does not misinform his audience. I have no idea if he is correct or not. I expect the fanlax fact checkers will be in full gear in this.

Good effort.

She has hired about 50% women; this shouldn't surprise as this was her life's mission. She has hired numerous -- I'm not counting any more than you are giving Wikipedia $$! -- Asian-Americans and other people who are "non-white." Your radio friend is quoting an article that identifies one "black" guy and uses it for effect. So you are "talking about" and forwarding a right wing narrative.

For the record, we should add -- and agree -- that these clerkships are perhaps the biggest plums in the profession, and becoming one is ordinarily the result of a brutal and serious merits based competition.

Cut me a little slack coaster. I was driving to Country Max to buy some more dog food. I was not sitting at my lap top to do more digging.

Consider the slack cut. Hope Roxy and bride are well.

[cradleandshoot]

A local radio host said this on his show just a few minutes ago. This may infuriate some of you FLP folks out there but here goes. In RBGs 40 year legal career she only had one black person that ever worked for her. I am not passing judgement. I am just repeating what I just heard. If it is true it does not reflect very well on a liberal icon.

It's incorrect, she's had at least one African American clerk, as well as other non-whites.

I do think the term "liberal icon" is bit of a misnomer, albeit I do understand and accept it. It would be more accurate to say that she's a women's and gender equality icon.

The radio host said she only had one black person work for her in 40 years. I was surprised when he said it but he is normally very thorough about what he reports on his show. As a matter of fact, he was surprised as well. If he was wrong I am sure he will catch holy hell from his audience. I am sure the record will be fact checked on this forum.

my error, I read too quickly...yes, one African American...but others of color as well. Not sure one could make some sort of negative case out of that, at least not fairly relative to others on the Court over that long period of time.

Lots of women over the years, unsurprisingly. In that dimension, she was way, way ahead of her colleagues.

To please my far right friends on here, allow me to include that it would be fair to say that Kavanaugh has made a big effort to have a highly diverse set of clerks, significantly more so than the Court as a whole. Very substantial effort.

With all the talented young black female attorneys that are practicing law in our country RBG could not find one that was capable of clerking for her for 25 years?

[cradleandshoot]

A local radio host said this on his show just a few minutes ago. This may infuriate some of you FLP folks out there but here goes. In RBGs 40 year legal career she only had one black person that ever worked for her. I am not passing judgement. I am just repeating what I just heard. If it is true it does not reflect very well on a liberal icon.

It's incorrect, she's had at least one African American clerk, as well as other non-whites.

I do think the term "liberal icon" is bit of a misnomer, albeit I do understand and accept it. It would be more accurate to say that she's a women's and gender equality icon.

It doesn't infuriate me, because it is the usual outcome determinative BS that the right (Ed Whelan, professional hack) offers to a public that won't bother checking. Check the list of her clerks here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... s_(Seat_6)

A largely phony right-wing narrative, which, naturally, focuses on the paucity of the "black people" to advance the narrative, overlooking the reality of the entirety. But sure, she hated black folks.

I tried your link coaster. It starts out begging for money
I went no further. I am not talking about a right wing narrative. I only posted what I heard from a source who does not misinform his audience. I have no idea if he is correct or not. I expect the fanlax fact checkers will be in full gear in this.

Good effort.

She has hired about 50% women; this shouldn't surprise as this was her life's mission. She has hired numerous -- I'm not counting any more than you are giving Wikipedia $$! -- Asian-Americans and other people who are "non-white." Your radio friend is quoting an article that identifies one "black" guy and uses it for effect. So you are "talking about" and forwarding a right wing narrative.

For the record, we should add -- and agree -- that these clerkships are perhaps the biggest plums in the profession, and becoming one is ordinarily the result of a brutal and serious merits based competition.

Cut me a little slack coaster. I was driving to Country Max to buy some more dog food. I was not sitting at my lap top to do more digging.

Consider the slack cut. Hope Roxy and bride are well.

My wife is still recuperating from her surgery. Roxy is quickly taking over the entire house. She no longer likes her dog bed. She prefers lounging on the couch with either my wife or I.

[njbill]

To please my far right friends on here, allow me to include that it would be fair to say that Kavanaugh has made a big effort to have a highly diverse set of clerks, significantly more so than the Court as a whole. Very substantial effort.

Reports are that BK especially likes gal clerks who look a certain way.

Bros gonna Bro.

I remember him trying to spin this that he was trying to give breaks to women when everyone, even Pete, knew what was really going on.

[ggait]

To please my far right friends on here, allow me to include that it would be fair to say that Kavanaugh has made a big effort to have a highly diverse set of clerks, significantly more so than the Court as a whole. Very substantial effort.

Reports are that BK especially likes gal clerks who look a certain way.

Bros gonna Bro.

I remember him trying to spin this that he was trying to give breaks to women when everyone, even Pete, knew what was really going on.

One of BK's clerks this year is the daughter of the Tiger Mom author (YLS professor) and the Tiger Mom's husband (also YLS professor). Mr. and Mrs. Tiger Mom reportedly did very active coaching of female YLS students applying for BK clerkships on how they should dress, appear and act in their BK interviews.

Tiger Daughter seems to fit the mold. Harvard, Yale, etc. etc. And also what we used to call "Law School hot."