• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Souter and Thomas were right-wing and calling Harriet Miers a feminist or even suggesting she is a capable justice on the level of justice Jackson is proof that you are not serious.

    Again- if the parties are the same, Trump and Biden would have the same reason to pick her.

    Which you are claiming is not the case.

    Which, again, proves my point.

    Either they are the same or they’re not the same. You want it both ways.

    And no, I’m not going to explain anything while you insist on having it both ways, sorry.

    But… since you know your judicial history and know why they pick justices, you can still explain what that same reason is.

    So what is it?

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Souter and Thomas were right-wing

      Souter was a reliable liberal vote for the entirety of his term on the bench. And he was from the same Harvard legal school that dominates the Supreme Court to this day.

      calling Harriet Miers a feminist or even suggesting she is a capable justice on the level of justice Jackson

      This is gibberish. She’s not a feminist? She’s not capable of the level of justice? What on earth are you even talking about? Miers had been a sponsor of the Women’s Studies department at HBU since the 90s, ran multiple successful legal firms hearing cases at all levels of the judiciary in both Texas and California, and headed up the Texas State Bar before joining Bush Jr as his personal lawyer. She was right in line with conservative Democrats appointed by Carter, Clinton, and Obama, and could easily have stood in for Ruth Bader Ginsberg or Ketanji Brown Jackson as a professional judge.

      Either they are the same or they’re not the same

      They are the same. They consistently put up candidates from the same insular club of Harvard Ivy League SCOTUS clerks. When Presidents step outside of line - as with the Miers nomination or the Bork nomination - the Senate reins them back in, regardless of the quality of the candidate.

      since you know your judicial history and know why they pick justices, you can still explain what that same reason is.

      There’s your reasoning. Its the Biden Judiciary that controls who has sat the bench and who has been disqualified for the last 40 years. And that’s why the SCOTUS sucks today. Jackson is not exemplary. She’s just another Harvard lemming, groomed to strictly defer to conservative hegemony that dominates legal jurisprudence.

      Trump may well pick someone outside that niche, but the Senate will kill the nomination and force him back into his lane. Then he’ll queue up yet one more cloistered nun of the Harvard Law Review, just like his peers in the Democratic Party.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            “Christian Feminism Today.”

            Are you fucking serious?

            No, no you’re not. Because the entire argument that article makes for her being a feminist is her weakly indicating she wasn’t entirely anti-abortion.

            Either you didn’t think I’d read that or you have an incredibly misogynistic idea of what a feminist is.

            So I think there’s no point in continuing.

            • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              Are you fucking serious?

              My guy, you want news stories from a twenty year old story via a search engine that doesn’t work. This is what you get. I’m sorry I couldn’t find Gloria Steinem’s “In defense is Harriet Miers” LiveJournal page, that URL was beyond me.

              Because the entire argument that article makes for her being a feminist is her weakly indicating she wasn’t entirely anti-abortion.

              You’re being nakedly dishonest. The article lauds her intelligence and independence and concludes she was ousted for being an unreliable conservative block vote.

              This is exactly why both parties keep returning to the Harvard Law Review well when selecting candidates. Any deviance from that singular legal institution is intolerable.

              It’s central to the case that both of these parties are putting up the same people.