Biden's VP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kagan, Roberts, Breyer, Gorsuch - Harvard Law
Thomas, Alito, Soromayor, Kavanaugh - Yale
Ginsburg- Harvard/Columbia Law

Harris - Hastings Law School

Notice a difference?

Are we really going to suggest that only ivy-league grads can be on SCOTUS?

Of course not! We limit the SCOTUS to Harvard/Yale alums only. Other Ivies are not good enough. Ginsburg would have been Chief Justice if she had stayed at Harvard instead of transferring to Columbia.

How long has it been since a politician has been on the Supreme Court? Quite a while, I think. Pretty sure they all have experience being judges, except Kagan who had other impressive legal chops.
Schools aside, I'm not sure Harris has the background. Judges, with the help of their clerks, write opinions. Has Harris ever been a clerk for a judge?

No, she hasn't. She is not qualified for a SCOTUS nom and would never be confirmed if Biden were foolish enough to nom her.

How is she not qualified as the former atty general for CA?

See PPs on the usual qualifications. 8 of 9 sitting justices were judges who clerked at the Court, the 9th (Kagan) had sterling academic credentials and had argued before the Court. Kamala has a very different legal background. If she were put forward, it is highly unlikely she could be confirmed. If she were put forward it would basically just be a giant eff you to Kavanaugh, and Biden is not the type to sully the Court in that way.

Racism is real. How are her credentials less that O'Connor who was never a law clerk/barely a judge before SCOTUS?

Why don't you ask that question once Harris has served as a judge for seven years, okay? Meanwhile, perhaps engage with the highly qualified Black women being discussed for SCOTUS on this thread? Kruger and Jackson are the strongest contenders, but there are a few other contenders (with civil rights/academic backgrounds) being mentioned as well: https://www.vox.com/2020/2/25/21153824/biden-black-woman-supreme-court

https://www.vox.com/2020/2/25/21153824/biden-black-woman-supreme-court

[Anonymous]

Based on the nomination committee .....Chris Dodd is never going to get behind Warren, Lisa Blunt is a Val Dennings friend and Garcetti declined to endorse Harris and publicly said she didn’t have California in the bag. Cynthia Hogan worked closely with Biden as his legal advisor and is likely a swing vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
See PPs on the usual qualifications. 8 of 9 sitting justices were judges who clerked at the Court, the 9th (Kagan) had sterling academic credentials and had argued before the Court. Kamala has a very different legal background. If she were put forward, it is highly unlikely she could be confirmed. If she were put forward it would basically just be a giant eff you to Kavanaugh, and Biden is not the type to sully the Court in that way.

Racism is real. How are her credentials less that O'Connor who was never a law clerk/barely a judge before SCOTUS?

You are ignoring history. In 1981 when O'Connor was appointed to the SCOTUS, there were very few women in the judiciary. There were only a handful of women judges at any level in 1980. Although there were a few female judges from 1920-1980, they were few and far between and it was very hard. So in that day and age, it was hard to find too many female judges with extensive judicial experience. When she first graduated law school and passed the bar, she had troubles finding jobs even as a lawyer because she was female. Gender discrimination was very common in both the legal and judicial professions at the time.

Contrast that with now when over 20% of the appointed judgeships in the lowest circuits (significantly higher in the other circuits) are women. In the 40 years since O'Connor's time, many more women have had the opportunity and also been selected to be judges. There is a far greater pool of candidates with significant judicial experience available now to select from. It would do a disservice to the many qualified candidates with excellent resumes and experience to nominate Harris for the SCOTUS. She would look like an AA placement and would make a lot of the country think that she was only placed there for her status, not for her qualifications or experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
See PPs on the usual qualifications. 8 of 9 sitting justices were judges who clerked at the Court, the 9th (Kagan) had sterling academic credentials and had argued before the Court. Kamala has a very different legal background. If she were put forward, it is highly unlikely she could be confirmed. If she were put forward it would basically just be a giant eff you to Kavanaugh, and Biden is not the type to sully the Court in that way.

Racism is real. How are her credentials less that O'Connor who was never a law clerk/barely a judge before SCOTUS?

You are ignoring history. In 1981 when O'Connor was appointed to the SCOTUS, there were very few women in the judiciary. There were only a handful of women judges at any level in 1980. Although there were a few female judges from 1920-1980, they were few and far between and it was very hard. So in that day and age, it was hard to find too many female judges with extensive judicial experience. When she first graduated law school and passed the bar, she had troubles finding jobs even as a lawyer because she was female. Gender discrimination was very common in both the legal and judicial professions at the time.

Contrast that with now when over 20% of the appointed judgeships in the lowest percentage circuits (significantly higher in the other circuits) are women. In the 40 years since O'Connor's time, many more women have had the opportunity and also been selected to be judges. There is a far greater pool of candidates with significant judicial experience available now to select from. It would do a disservice to the many qualified candidates with excellent resumes and experience to nominate Harris for the SCOTUS. She would look like an AA placement and would make a lot of the country think that she was only placed there for her status, not for her qualifications or experience.

A word was missing when I posted. Corrected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Based on the nomination committee .....Chris Dodd is never going to get behind Warren, Lisa Blunt is a Val Dennings friend and Garcetti declined to endorse Harris and publicly said she didn’t have California in the bag. Cynthia Hogan worked closely with Biden as his legal advisor and is likely a swing vote.

Interesting points, thank you.

As far as I know Garcetti didn't have a beef with Harris, but simply thought Biden had the better chance to win the nomination and beat Trump:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article231516238.html

I agree Dodd won't back Warren though, hadn't thought of that. I hate that corporate interests are so strongly represented on the selection committee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kagan, Roberts, Breyer, Gorsuch - Harvard Law
Thomas, Alito, Soromayor, Kavanaugh - Yale
Ginsburg- Harvard/Columbia Law

Harris - Hastings Law School

Notice a difference?

Are we really going to suggest that only ivy-league grads can be on SCOTUS?

Of course not! We limit the SCOTUS to Harvard/Yale alums only. Other Ivies are not good enough. Ginsburg would have been Chief Justice if she had stayed at Harvard instead of transferring to Columbia.

How long has it been since a politician has been on the Supreme Court? Quite a while, I think. Pretty sure they all have experience being judges, except Kagan who had other impressive legal chops.
Schools aside, I'm not sure Harris has the background. Judges, with the help of their clerks, write opinions. Has Harris ever been a clerk for a judge?

No, she hasn't. She is not qualified for a SCOTUS nom and would never be confirmed if Biden were foolish enough to nom her.

How is she not qualified as the former atty general for CA?

See PPs on the usual qualifications. 8 of 9 sitting justices were judges who clerked at the Court, the 9th (Kagan) had sterling academic credentials and had argued before the Court. Kamala has a very different legal background. If she were put forward, it is highly unlikely she could be confirmed. If she were put forward it would basically just be a giant eff you to Kavanaugh, and Biden is not the type to sully the Court in that way.

Kavanaugh sullies the court.

[Anonymous]

I'm starting to see leaks designed to test run Warren. Looks like Liz may get the nod after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to see leaks designed to test run Warren. Looks like Liz may get the nod after all.

There is absolutely no way that any president is going to nominate a 71 year old woman for the Supreme Court. That's the age that people are starting to wonder if this justice if/when the justice is going to retire. Justices are nominated in their 40's and 50's. Even Harris at age 56 (the age she would be when Biden could nominate her) will be a little long in the tooth for the nomination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to see leaks designed to test run Warren. Looks like Liz may get the nod after all.

There is absolutely no way that any president is going to nominate a 71 year old woman for the Supreme Court. That's the age that people are starting to wonder if this justice if/when the justice is going to retire. Justices are nominated in their 40's and 50's. Even Harris at age 56 (the age she would be when Biden could nominate her) will be a little long in the tooth for the nomination.

Pretty sure PP was talking about veep. Title of thread, and all.......

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to see leaks designed to test run Warren. Looks like Liz may get the nod after all.

There is absolutely no way that any president is going to nominate a 71 year old woman for the Supreme Court. That's the age that people are starting to wonder if this justice if/when the justice is going to retire. Justices are nominated in their 40's and 50's. Even Harris at age 56 (the age she would be when Biden could nominate her) will be a little long in the tooth for the nomination.

Oh wait, you mean for VP? Go back and read the previous pages. It's been discussed many times and by many political pundits about the problems with replacing her seat, just handing another Senate seat over to the Republicans for half of the next term, the fact that she adds very little to the ticket and that her age does not satisfy many of the moderates and independents who are already borderline scared of Biden's physical and mental health and his susceptibility to Covid-19. She's too old to be Biden's running mate. He needs someone younger. Way too many strikes against her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Based on the nomination committee .....Chris Dodd is never going to get behind Warren, Lisa Blunt is a Val Dennings friend and Garcetti declined to endorse Harris and publicly said she didn’t have California in the bag. Cynthia Hogan worked closely with Biden as his legal advisor and is likely a swing vote.

Interesting points, thank you.

As far as I know Garcetti didn't have a beef with Harris, but simply thought Biden had the better chance to win the nomination and beat Trump:
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article231516238.html

I agree Dodd won't back Warren though, hadn't thought of that. I hate that corporate interests are so strongly represented on the selection committee.

More on Blunt: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/joe-biden-lisa-blunt-rochester-running-mate-helping-choose/
I wonder why she herself isn't on the short list. Haven't she and Demings served in Congress the same amount of time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to see leaks designed to test run Warren. Looks like Liz may get the nod after all.

There is absolutely no way that any president is going to nominate a 71 year old woman for the Supreme Court. That's the age that people are starting to wonder if this justice if/when the justice is going to retire. Justices are nominated in their 40's and 50's. Even Harris at age 56 (the age she would be when Biden could nominate her) will be a little long in the tooth for the nomination.

Oh wait, you mean for VP? Go back and read the previous pages. It's been discussed many times and by many political pundits about the problems with replacing her seat, just handing another Senate seat over to the Republicans for half of the next term, the fact that she adds very little to the ticket and that her age does not satisfy many of the moderates and independents who are already borderline scared of Biden's physical and mental health and his susceptibility to Covid-19. She's too old to be Biden's running mate. He needs someone younger. Way too many strikes against her.

Yeah I meant VP. And I didn't say I disagreed with any of that analysis. I said I'm starting to see definitive leaks meant as a Warren trial balloon. Anybody on the inside (I assume there are many others who lurk here) should start to see or hear the same this week. At the end of the day, despite losing a Senate seat, winning the White House is the only thing that matters and they will pick based on the strength of the ticket in the upper midwest and rust belt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to see leaks designed to test run Warren. Looks like Liz may get the nod after all.

There is absolutely no way that any president is going to nominate a 71 year old woman for the Supreme Court. That's the age that people are starting to wonder if this justice if/when the justice is going to retire. Justices are nominated in their 40's and 50's. Even Harris at age 56 (the age she would be when Biden could nominate her) will be a little long in the tooth for the nomination.

Oh wait, you mean for VP? Go back and read the previous pages. It's been discussed many times and by many political pundits about the problems with replacing her seat, just handing another Senate seat over to the Republicans for half of the next term, the fact that she adds very little to the ticket and that her age does not satisfy many of the moderates and independents who are already borderline scared of Biden's physical and mental health and his susceptibility to Covid-19. She's too old to be Biden's running mate. He needs someone younger. Way too many strikes against her.

Yeah I meant VP. And I didn't say I disagreed with any of that analysis. I said I'm starting to see definitive leaks meant as a Warren trial balloon. Anybody on the inside (I assume there are many others who lurk here) should start to see or hear the same this week. At the end of the day, despite losing a Senate seat, winning the White House is the only thing that matters and they will pick based on the strength of the ticket in the upper midwest and rust belt.

Yes, and Warren add nothing, in fact, will probably leech votes in the midwest and rust belt and other areas that are swing, including Arizona and Florida. Warren's strength are in already strong Democratic strongholds, not the places that Biden needs help with (California, Oregon and the northeast are not likely to support Trump in November).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to see leaks designed to test run Warren. Looks like Liz may get the nod after all.

There is absolutely no way that any president is going to nominate a 71 year old woman for the Supreme Court. That's the age that people are starting to wonder if this justice if/when the justice is going to retire. Justices are nominated in their 40's and 50's. Even Harris at age 56 (the age she would be when Biden could nominate her) will be a little long in the tooth for the nomination.

Oh wait, you mean for VP? Go back and read the previous pages. It's been discussed many times and by many political pundits about the problems with replacing her seat, just handing another Senate seat over to the Republicans for half of the next term, the fact that she adds very little to the ticket and that her age does not satisfy many of the moderates and independents who are already borderline scared of Biden's physical and mental health and his susceptibility to Covid-19. She's too old to be Biden's running mate. He needs someone younger. Way too many strikes against her.

Yeah I meant VP. And I didn't say I disagreed with any of that analysis. I said I'm starting to see definitive leaks meant as a Warren trial balloon. Anybody on the inside (I assume there are many others who lurk here) should start to see or hear the same this week. At the end of the day, despite losing a Senate seat, winning the White House is the only thing that matters and they will pick based on the strength of the ticket in the upper midwest and rust belt.

Yes, and Warren add nothing, in fact, will probably leech votes in the midwest and rust belt and other areas that are swing, including Arizona and Florida. Warren's strength are in already strong Democratic strongholds, not the places that Biden needs help with (California, Oregon and the northeast are not likely to support Trump in November).

And the D’s could win the senate by the skin of their teeth. They need Warren’s senate seat because the current governor of Mass is a R and would appoint her replacement, if she won the VP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm starting to see leaks designed to test run Warren. Looks like Liz may get the nod after all.

There is absolutely no way that any president is going to nominate a 71 year old woman for the Supreme Court. That's the age that people are starting to wonder if this justice if/when the justice is going to retire. Justices are nominated in their 40's and 50's. Even Harris at age 56 (the age she would be when Biden could nominate her) will be a little long in the tooth for the nomination.

Oh wait, you mean for VP? Go back and read the previous pages. It's been discussed many times and by many political pundits about the problems with replacing her seat, just handing another Senate seat over to the Republicans for half of the next term, the fact that she adds very little to the ticket and that her age does not satisfy many of the moderates and independents who are already borderline scared of Biden's physical and mental health and his susceptibility to Covid-19. She's too old to be Biden's running mate. He needs someone younger. Way too many strikes against her.

Yeah I meant VP. And I didn't say I disagreed with any of that analysis. I said I'm starting to see definitive leaks meant as a Warren trial balloon. Anybody on the inside (I assume there are many others who lurk here) should start to see or hear the same this week. At the end of the day, despite losing a Senate seat, winning the White House is the only thing that matters and they will pick based on the strength of the ticket in the upper midwest and rust belt.

Yes, and Warren add nothing, in fact, will probably leech votes in the midwest and rust belt and other areas that are swing, including Arizona and Florida. Warren's strength are in already strong Democratic strongholds, not the places that Biden needs help with (California, Oregon and the northeast are not likely to support Trump in November).

And the D’s could win the senate by the skin of their teeth. They need Warren’s senate seat because the current governor of Mass is a R and would appoint her replacement, if she won the VP.

There was a workaround but that would have entailed naming her early, so I agree it's not likely to happen now.