Harris On The Supreme Court? Bad Idea!

[Revoltingest]

I did not know the distinction you have drawn: experience as a defense attorney vs experience as a prosecutor made a difference. It is food for thought. Do prosecuting attorneys only think of wins, and not justice? That is the issue you think should have more importance than it presently seems to command.

Dang, fella...your response was within the quote of my post.
So I copied it, & inserted it here.

I've considered many cases where prosecutors have intentionally
hidden exculpatory evidence in order to secure a win. But even
honest prosecutors will still have that orientation & expertise.
Could there be former prosecutors who are strong advocates
for defendants? Possibly. That would require careful vetting.

 

[F1fan]

Savy-ness aside, I'm most concerned about another justice
whose past focus has been upon putting people in prison.
(Is the Blackstone becoming obsolete? I sure hope not.)

By coincidence, NPR had a piece this morning about this
issue. A problem is the paucity of black female judges who
have risen to a level making them worthy of consideration
for the SCOTUS role.
If Biden is committed to a specific & rare race & gender mix,
a "unicorn" as it were, will he find someone acceptable to me?
I hope he contacts me soon for advice. (He hasn't yet.)

There are many candidates who would do a good job. It's been tradition to pick nominees to fit the times. Reagan was pressured to pick a woman since his attitudes towards women's rights was a big concern. In the USA right now we have a lot of racism on the rise, and pressure in many states opposing CRT and other classes of citizens and their rights. In Virginia if a teacher tells students about CRT and racism they will end up in jail. There are books being banned in red states, mostly topics of race, gender, sex, and other scary topics to conservatives. So with intolerance on the rise it is a good tactic to respond with a justice that will symbolize the opposite, nd bring a voice to freedom.

I'm sure there is a white male who would fight for freedoms and rights, but there has to be an awareness of who is being represented in justice and government, and that diversity brings an advantage.

 

[Revoltingest]

There are many candidates who would do a good job. It's been tradition to pick nominees to fit the times. Reagan was pressured to pick a woman since his attitudes towards women's rights was a big concern. In the USA right now we have a lot of racism on the rise, and pressure in many states opposing CRT and other classes of citizens and their rights. In Virginia if a teacher tells students about CRT and racism they will end up in jail. There are books being banned in red states, mostly topics of race, gender, sex, and other scary topics to conservatives. So with intolerance on the rise it is a good tactic to respond with a justice that will symbolize the opposite, nd bring a voice to freedom.

I'm sure there is a white male who would fight for freedoms and rights, but there has to be an awareness of who is being represented in justice and government, and that diversity brings an advantage.

I see racism & intolerance from both right & left.
People accept their own brand, & reject others.
They're largely blind to their own.

I'd prefer that justices not have an agenda based
upon one side or the other being racist. A focus
upon civil liberties for all is best.
Imagine that policing became better, with cops
fully monitored & held accountable. What better
way to prevent harm from racism than by ensuring
rights for all, eh.

 

[F1fan]

Dang, fella...your response was within the quote of my post.
So I copied it, & inserted it here.

I've considered many cases where prosecutors have intentionally
hidden exculpatory evidence in order to secure a win. But even
honest prosecutors will still have that orientation & expertise.
Could there be former prosecutors who are strong advocates
for defendants? Possibly. That would require careful vetting.

The Kevin Stricklin case here in Kansas City has gotten national news. I'm sure you are aware of it. The Missouri governor refused to let him out of prison even after the new prosecutor admitted the case was bogus. I think prosecutors should be held personally liable for anyone they convict with bogus or weak evidence. There is little chance for a convicted innocent person from getting a case heard. Missouri has no law that says a person wrongfully imprisoned is owed compensation, so this guy spent over 40 years in prison, and is in a wheelchair due to poor healthcare, and has no money. Just an apology, and good luck on the streets. Unbelievable. Parsons did not care. He was probably worried about his trump base of voters being mad if he let an innocent black person out of prison.

Luckily Stricklin had a gofundme and raised over a million bucks. But did prosecutors learn anything? I doubt it.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Kevin Stricklin case here in Kansas City has gotten national news. I'm sure you are aware of it. The Missouri governor refused to let him out of prison even after the new prosecutor admitted the case was bogus. I think prosecutors should be held personally liable for anyone they convict with bogus or weak evidence. There is little chance for a convicted innocent person from getting a case heard. Missouri has no law that says a person wrongfully imprisoned is owed compensation, so this guy spent over 40 years in prison, and is in a wheelchair due to poor healthcare, and has no money. Just an apology, and good luck on the streets. Unbelievable. Parsons did not care. He was probably worried about his trump base of voters being mad if he let an innocent black person out of prison.

Luckily Stricklin had a gofundme and raised over a million bucks. But did prosecutors learn anything? I doubt it.

I was not familiar.
Who is Kevin Strickland and why is he in a wheelchair?

 

[F1fan]

I see racism & intolerance from both right & left.
People accept their own brand, & reject others.
They're largely blind to their own.

I don't like these kind of misleading comments. The Germans and Allies both killed innocent people, so they were morally the same, right?

It is demonstrable that conservatives are vastly more prejudiced against diversity than liberals. Just look at the House of Representatives, the republicans are mostly white Christian men. Democrats have a huge diversity of race, gender, and religion. I'm not denying that there are Democrats who are prejudiced, I'm challenging your wording that doesn't recognize the huge difference between the two sides. My point is who would you trust to defend rights of people today in the USA? If you were a black guy with a little bit of weed and just got pulled over, would you prefer to be in a progressive blue state, or a red state? Which states are being more reasonable about drug laws?

I'd prefer that justices not have an agenda based
upon one side or the other being racist. A focus
upon civil liberties for all is best.

Well that isn't the world we live in. The republicans have a very big agenda of prohibitions against the citizen and rights. You want reproductive rights? Sorry. You want public health from Covid? Sorry. You want to reduce guns in society? Sorry. You want to use recreational drugs? Sorry. You want voting rights? Sorry.

If democrats don't work to balance the court the imbalance will get worse.

Personally i think SC justices should be a list selected from an expert set of judges, and the nomination be from a bipartisan committee where republicans pick 4 democrats and democrats pick 4 republicans. Then the senate votes, and the vote must be a minimum of 67%. That will ensure more moderate judges.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't like these kind of misleading comments.

Not "misleading".
Tis misreading.

The Germans and Allies both killed innocent people, so they were morally the same, right?

Relevance?

It is demonstrable that conservatives are vastly more prejudiced against diversity than liberals.

Liberals believe that.
But they're notoriously blind to their own prejudices,
being so convinced of their own moral & intellectual
superiority.
(Of course, conservatives I know have the same myopia.)

Just look at the House of Representatives, the republicans are mostly white Christian men. Democrats have a huge diversity of race, gender, and religion. I'm not denying that there are Democrats who are prejudiced, I'm challenging your wording that doesn't recognize the huge difference between the two sides.

In your argument, you cite problems with the right.
You say nothing of any problems on the left.
A cogent argument would have comparisons.

My point is who would you trust to defend rights of people today in the USA? If you were a black guy with a little bit of weed and just got pulled over, would you prefer to be in a progressive blue state, or a red state? Which states are being more reasonable about drug laws?

The problem you cite is rooted in bi-partisan cooperation
on both sides of the aisle.
One example is the 1994 Crime Bill, which had a
devastating effect on minorities (& whites too)....
The controversial 1994 crime law that Joe Biden helped write, explained
Fact Sheet: President Bill Clinton’s 1994 Crime Bill | BlackandBrownNews.com
How the 1994 Crime Bill Fed the Mass Incarceration Crisis

Well that isn't the world we live in. The republicans have a very big agenda of prohibitions against the citizen and rights. You want reproductive rights? Sorry. You want public health from Covid? Sorry. You want to reduce guns in society? Sorry. You want to use recreational drugs? Sorry. You want voting rights? Sorry.

If democrats don't work to balance the court the imbalance will get worse.

Personally i think SC justices should be a list selected from an expert set of judges, and the nomination be from a bipartisan committee where republicans pick 4 democrats and democrats pick 4 republicans. Then the senate votes, and the vote must be a minimum of 67%. That will ensure more moderate judges.

Bill Clinton, for example, had a terrible civil liberties record.
His administration tried arguing to SCOTUS....
- People in public housing had no 4th Amendment rights
because the state provided their housing.
- That the right to a jury trial was not guaranteed in the
6th Amendment. It could be unilaterally denied if government
called something a "petty offense". This is now law, ie, if
you face less than a year in prison, government can waive it.
- That private non-licensed people are subject to speech
regulation imposed upon licensed professions regarding
Fair Housing Laws. As I recall they tried to make it illegal
for members of a community to advocate against group
homes.

The list goes on & on. I'll wager that you've never even
heard of what I just posted. Few liberals have.
Criminy....few conservatives have. Everyone should
take more of an interest in constitutional civil rights for all.

BTW, I'm an F18 fan.
The F1 sucks hind teat.

 

[F1fan]

Not "misleading".
Tis misreading.

I dislike the "both sides do it" type claims when the behavior is not an equal percentage.

Relevance?

An example.

Liberals believe that.
But they're notoriously blind to their own prejudices,
being so convinced of their own moral & intellectual
superiority.
(Of course, conservatives I know have the same myopia.)

No, we can easily see how conservatives are a vastly more prejudicial bunch.

In your argument, you cite problems with the right.
You say nothing of any problems on the left.
A cogent argument would have comparisons.

The problems of the right are a vastly more dangerous issue than the problems with democrats. I'm not defending any side as perfect. I'm pointing out how republicans pose a bigger threat to the future of the USA and democrat and freedoms than democrats. The issues of justice you have been posting about in recent months will not be solved by republicans, quite the contrary. They might make freedom and liberty less accessible to citizens, mostly in voting and racial diversity.

The problem you cite is rooted in bi-partisan cooperation
on both sides of the aisle.
One example is the 1994 Crime Bill, which had a
devastating effect on minorities (& whites too)....
The controversial 1994 crime law that Joe Biden helped write, explained
Fact Sheet: President Bill Clinton’s 1994 Crime Bill | BlackandBrownNews.com
How the 1994 Crime Bill Fed the Mass Incarceration Crisis

Bill Clinton, for example, had a terrible civil liberties record.
His administration tried arguing to SCOTUS....
- People in public housing had no 4th Amendment rights
because the state provided their housing.
- That the right to a jury trial was not guaranteed in the
6th Amendment. It could be unilaterally denied if government
called something a "petty offense". This is now law, ie, if
you face less than a year in prison, government can waive it.
- That private non-licensed people are subject to speech
regulation imposed upon licensed professions regarding
Fair Housing Laws. As I recall they tried to make it illegal
for members of a community to advocate against group
homes.

This is obsolete, and no longer relevant. That was an era where both sides were willing to cooperate and compromise. Democrats were willing to infringe on rights to give the republicans something. Today the rights of people are a bigger priority. The democrats have evolved on this issue. Republicans have not. With republicans in a position to block any sort of progress we are largely stuck with those compromises from 27 years ago.

The list goes on & on. I'll wager that you've never even
heard of what I just posted. Few liberals have.
Criminy....few conservatives have. Everyone should
take more of an interest in constitutional civil rights for all.

Sure, name something recent that shows current democrats supporting racist laws. The democrats have moved left. The republicans have moved far right. The democrats are the party of freedom, liberties, public safety, personal responsibility, voting rights, woman's rights, equality, diversity, the planet, fair taxes, etc. What do republicans stand for today, except the wealthy and attaining power? Who is closer to what you want? You seem wary to even assess either side as an option to help you out.

 

[Revoltingest]

I dislike the "both sides do it" type claims when the behavior is not an equal percentage.

So you're one of those "False equivalency!" types
who objects to comparisons & commonality when
there's no actual claim of equivalence, eh.

I see the trick there...it's an attempt to shrug off
all criticism by saying the other side is worse.
I don't buy it.
Nay, it even illustrates the left's blindness towards
its own sins. End the hatred....cast that critical
eye towards all...even one's own tribe.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I see racism & intolerance from both right & left.
People accept their own brand, & reject others.
They're largely blind to their own.

I'd prefer that justices not have an agenda based
upon one side or the other being racist. A focus
upon civil liberties for all is best.
Imagine that policing became better, with cops
fully monitored & held accountable. What better
way to prevent harm from racism than by ensuring
rights for all, eh.

Stop and frisk.

Self explanatory on what 'ahem' party backed that up.

 

[Revoltingest]

Stop and frisk.

Self explanatory on what 'ahem' party backed that up.

An interesting bit on that policy....
Bloomberg and Biden both lied during debate about who ended stop-and-frisk, says judge who ruled against practice

 

[Twilight Hue]

An interesting bit on that policy....
Bloomberg and Biden both lied during debate about who ended stop-and-frisk, says judge who ruled against practice

Now they want the secret police back.

Of course they promise they won't be abusive this time around.


Eric Adams vows new NYPD plainclothes team won't be 'abusive'

Yeaaa... sure.......

 

[Revoltingest]

Now they want the secret police back.

Of course they promise they won't be abusive this time around.


Eric Adams vows new NYPD plainclothes team won't be 'abusive'

Yeaaa... sure.......

The police will monitor themselves to ensure that they're perfect.
"Plainclothes" is a euphemism for "no body camera".

 

[esmith]

I don't see anyway that the possibility even exist for this to happen for a couple of reasons.
1. Biden said he and Harris are going to run in the 2024 elections. This would more that likely preclude Harris's nomination.
2. This is the big one. IMO 50 Republicans would vote nay and 50 Democrats might vote yes. Don't think Harris would be able to cast the deciding vote.
Of course I have been wrong in the past....remember tilting a pinball machine back in the 50's.

 

[Hold]

I don't see anyway that the possibility even exist for this to happen for a couple of reasons.
1. Biden said he and Harris are going to run in the 2024 elections. This would more that likely preclude Harris's nomination.
2. This is the big one. IMO 50 Republicans would vote nay and 50 Democrats might vote yes. Don't think Harris would be able to cast the deciding vote.
Of course I have been wrong in the past....remember tilting a pinball machine back in the 50's.

YOU!.... You tilted it but I was blamed and was flagged from the store for a week....(owner found a minute drilled hole in the side of pinball machine..1957)

 

[Hold]

To @Revoltingest, Do we automatically assume a black female candidate would not be qualified(having expertise and be fair) to serve on the SCOTUS just because the President was fulfilling a campaign promise? I look forward to an examination of any candidate's judicial record by the appropriate body of government, as you do.
@Revoltingest post;
[B]"I'd rather the nomination be based upon more
important criteria than race & gender."[/B]
"I've considered many cases where prosecutors have intentionally
hidden exculpatory evidence in order to secure a win. But even
honest prosecutors will still have that orientation & expertise.
Could there be former prosecutors who are strong advocates
for defendants? Possibly. [B]That would require careful vetting[/B]."..(Emphasis by Stonetree)

 

[Revoltingest]

To @Revoltingest, Do we automatically assume a black female candidate would not be qualified

No one has said a black female candidate cannot be qualified.
Let's avoid suggestions that it's racist to challenge the
idea that gender & race are the basis of choice.

Is making those 2 traits the primary goal of a justice?
And as for diversity, why is it limited to race & gender?
Genitalia & skin color are the appearance of diversity.
We could prioritize real diversity....
- An atheist instead of limiting it to only Christians & Jews.
- A criminal defense attorney or civil liberty advocate.

And if gender matters, how about some real diversity
with a trans or non-binary justice.

 

[Hold]

No one has said a black female candidate cannot be qualified.
Let's avoid suggestions that it's racist to challenge the
idea that gender & race are the basis of choice.

Is making those 2 traits the primary goal of a justice?
And as for diversity, why is it limited to race & gender?
Genitalia & skin color are the appearance of diversity.
We could prioritize real diversity....
- An atheist instead of limiting it to only Christians & Jews.
- A criminal defense attorney or civil liberty advocate.

And if gender matters, how about some real diversity
with a trans or non-binary justice.

An Atheist!...Are you mad,Mon??

 

[Revoltingest]

An Atheist!...Are you mad,Mon??

I'm not crazy....I prefer to be called "non-neurotypical".

Imagine a SCOTUS justice who doesn't cluck obedience to God.
One who would who would ask...
"Who is this God person anyway?"
(Douglas Adams would be would've been a great justice.)

 

[Hold]

I'm not crazy....I prefer to be called "non-neurotypical".

Imagine a SCOTUS justice who doesn't cluck obedience to God.
One who would who would ask...
"Who is this God person anyway?"
(Douglas Adams would be would've been a great justice.)

Great Poster...