Biden's VP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, she would have needed to have resigned her seat 160 days before the election, June 6. Now that we are almost 2 weeks past that, any appointment by Charlie Baker to replace her would hold the seat until the 2024 elections. That would be giving away the Senate and leaving Mitch McConnell as the likely Senate Majority leader who would kneecap Biden for 2 years and half his term.

[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.

No, the Warren naysayers have brayed their reasons, but that doesn’t mean you’re right. Is baker a hardline GOP? Could/would he accept some sort of a deal so that he’d nominate a Democratic replacement?

You say she’s old; she’s 71. Yeah, I get that that’s not a spring chicken, but it’s not like she’s an old 71. And no one batted an eye at the advanced ages of Trump, Biden, Reagan, H W (who was 64ish at election)...

As far as the black vote goes: she’s very well liked with AA voters. They just didn’t trust that white voters would turn out for her.

She shores up the progressive vote, which, let’s be honest, is a growing part of the Democratic Party but frequently gets ignored. FTR I’m progressive and I vote no matter who the Democratic nom is; I don’t believe in “sending messages” by not voting.

Plus, I want a bulldog flanking Biden. I don’t want “getting along” with the GOP terrorist party. I want fangs, blood, and bodies (figuratively, in case any GOP losers are lurking).

[Anonymous]

The more I learn about Demings, the more I like her. I was concerned about inexperience, but now see she has an impressive roster of committee assignments:

Committee assignments
Committee on Homeland Security
Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security
Committee on the Judiciary
Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations (Vice Chair)
Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
Subcommittee on Defense Intelligence and Warfighter Support
Subcommittee on Intelligence Modernization and Readiness

Hope vetting goes well, she's my top pick right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Lisa Blunt Rochester is from Delaware, just like Biden. I forget the particular whys and wherefores, but both people on the ticket can’t be from the same state and if they are they don’t get the electoral votes from that state. Which though small would be dumb to forfeit in what could be a close election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Lisa Blunt Rochester is from Delaware, just like Biden. I forget the particular whys and wherefores, but both people on the ticket can’t be from the same state and if they are they don’t get the electoral votes from that state. Which though small would be dumb to forfeit in what could be a close election.

Makes (weird) sense, thanks for the clarification.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

O’Connor went to Stanford and was a Judge for six years before being nominated. There are several qualified black women to be SCOTUS, Harris is not one of them. Leslie Abrams Gardner is another contender. She went to Yale, clerked for a Judge and is now a Federal Judge.

Being a senator for six years and writing laws is equal to six years on the bench, easy.

[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 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.

No, this kind of diminishing of her qualifications feels pretty racist (or ignorant). She was AG of California. She’s a senator on the judicial committee. There’s no rule that the Ivy League should be the only path to the Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

No, this kind of diminishing of her qualifications feels pretty racist (or ignorant). She was AG of California. She’s a senator on the judicial committee. There’s no rule that the Ivy League should be the only path to the Court.

This is not the thread for a SCOTUS discussion. Let the willfully obtuse PP start a new thread on that, because the repeated assertion that the several highly qualified Black women jurists discussed here (not including Harris) is somehow racist is surely getting tiresome.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

O’Connor went to Stanford and was a Judge for six years before being nominated. There are several qualified black women to be SCOTUS, Harris is not one of them. Leslie Abrams Gardner is another contender. She went to Yale, clerked for a Judge and is now a Federal Judge.

Being a senator for six years and writing laws is equal to six years on the bench, easy.

The one poster repeating this nonsense is getting absurd. Can we just not respond to these posts anymore, and keep focus on the VP nom?

[Anonymous]

Can someone post potential black cabinet members?

For example:

Demings, VP
Harris, AG
Chennault, Treasury
Rice, State
...., SecDef.....

And so on?
Biden needs to maximize the number of blacks in the cabinet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post potential black cabinet members?

For example:

Demings, VP
Harris, AG
Chennault, Treasury
Rice, State
...., SecDef.....

And so on?
Biden needs to maximize the number of blacks in the cabinet.

That is a thread all its own. Start a new new one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone post potential black cabinet members?

For example:

Demings, VP
Harris, AG
Chennault, Treasury
Rice, State
...., SecDef.....

And so on?
Biden needs to maximize the number of blacks in the cabinet.

I mean that's a substantial chunk of the cabinet right there. Who is Chennault? Michelle Howard is qualified for SecDefense.
Plenty of qualified Black candidates. What about Latinx and Asian prospects?

[Anonymous]

Susan Rice is the most qualified to be VP but it will come down to who they they think will help Biden the most. It’s six weeks to decision time and we all know things can turn in an instant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Susan Rice is the most qualified to be VP but it will come down to who they they think will help Biden the most. It’s six weeks to decision time and we all know things can turn in an instant.

She definitely is but I can't imagine they'll want to have Benghazi as a distraction and she's untested politically. She's ideal for State.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Susan Rice is the most qualified to be VP but it will come down to who they they think will help Biden the most. It’s six weeks to decision time and we all know things can turn in an instant.

She definitely is but I can't imagine they'll want to have Benghazi as a distraction and she's untested politically. She's ideal for State.

The thing about Benghazi is she can blame HRC (as she has) and it somehow rings true that Clinton put her up to take the fall.