Majority of Americans want Biden to consider 'all possible nominees' for Supreme Court vacancy: POLL - ABC News
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A new ABC News/Ipsos poll finds that a plurality of Americans view the Supreme Court as motivated by partisanship, while President Joe Biden's campaign trail vow to select a Black woman to fill a high-court vacancy without reviewing all potential candidates evokes a sharply negative reaction from voters.
The ABC News/Ipsos poll, which was conducted by Ipsos in partnership with ABC News using Ipsos' KnowledgePanel, comes days after the most senior member of the Supreme Court, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, announced his retirement at the end of the current term. Breyer's announcement provides Biden the opportunity to change the demographic makeup of the conservative-leaning bench.
During the spring 2020 presidential primaries, days before his set of big wins on Super Tuesday, Biden pledged to nominate the first Black woman to the Supreme Court, if elected. Now, with the chance to do so, just over three-quarters of Americans (76%) want Biden to consider "all possible nominees." Just 23% want him to automatically follow through on his history-making commitment that the White House seems keen on seeing through. At a ceremony honoring the retiring justice, Biden told reporters he is able to honor his promise without compromising on quality.
"The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity. And that person will be the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court," Biden said. "It's long overdue in my view. I made that commitment during the campaign for president, and I will keep that commitment."
Although the poll's sample size was not large enough to break out results for Black people, only a little more than 1 in 4 nonwhite Americans (28%) wish for Biden to consider only Black women for the vacancy. Democrats are more supportive of Biden's vow (46%) than Americans as a whole, but still a majority of Democrats (54%) also prefer that Biden consider all possible nominees.
Democrats hope that the nomination will re-engage Democrats, who are sorely in need of a boost in the run-up to what is shaping up to be a very challenging midterm election for the party.
Also, when it comes to assessments of the Supreme Court, 43% of voters believe justices rule "on the basis of their partisan political views" rather than "on the basis of the law," a position held by only 38% of respondents. Eighteen percent did not know enough to express a view one way or the other.
Tags
Who is online
77 visitors
This "controversy" is so dumb.
Did Trump consider "all possible nominees." before he nominated Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or Barrett ? Of course not. He was handed a list of right wing judges that was hand picked by a group of right wing judicial activists who want to stack the court with arch conservatives. There was no range of possibilities across ideologies, it was cut and dried that these nominees were going to be extremely conservative and almost surely white.
Did those making the list give a shit about race, sex, or religion- or was their only criteria a strict conservative Constitutionist, with anti abortion leanings?
Biden opened his stupid pie hole, which has become redundant for him, and put criteria in place base on race and sex. Now the only question left is how much of a liberal anti-Constitutional POS Biden thinks he can push through the Senate.
Republicans should treat any Biden nominee the exact same way as Democrats have treated the past several conservative nominees. Their entire life, religion, as well as court records should be open for public display; and any partisans that come out with accusations they can't prove must be given full credence. This should be a full blown trial; with the nominee already found guilty. Maybe if Republicans beat the shit of the nominee during the nomination process it will cower the future Justice into making more moderate decisions.
Thanks for the nonsense.
You know they did. They would never have considered a black or brown, female, gay or trans, atheist or Muslim.
If you can’t tell the difference between “I’ll nominate the best qualified liberal And I’ll nominate the best qualified black female liberal,” I don’t know what to tell you.
Trump put 3 people on the court and didnt consider a wide range of prospects in any of the three cases.
This "controversy" about a black woman nominee is absurd.
If you think it is different with Reagan saying he would only nominate the most qualified woman...
Exactly. Spot on
It certainly is absurd. Presidents by choice nominate whomsoever they will, including up to and touching a politician. Thankfully, she will have skin attached so we don't have to look at internal organs on display.
[deleted]
[deleted, meta]
[btw, the seeder determines what the topic is, or can be expanded to, so by definition, he cannot be off topic.]
You may have heard the one about, "Walking and chewing gum at the same time"? Yeah, we can do it. Not difficult at all!
Not enough eyerolls in the universe for a statement that stupid.
Trump thought his nominations would have his back. He found out otherwise lately.
Notice the ones complaining the loudest are the ones that pic noms from the federalist society....
Rumor has it that Michelle Obama is being considered
Only in Reich-wing propaganda.
Democrats seemingly want a return of anyone named Obama.
They trot her name out when talking of Presidential nominees, too.
Pretty damn funny when she has clearly stated she won't run.
Mark my words, there will be worse nominees proposed.
Given the fact that the PotUS nominates and the Senate confirms, SCotUS justices are seated as a result of partisan forces. It is inevitable. So nobody should be surprised that a PotUS' nomination is replete with political factors and that the Senate confirmation is a political negotiation.
That said, it would be nice if these agents could actually seat justices objectively but there simply is no chance that will happen. Biden made a campaign promise and this is easy for him to fill ... so obviously he is going to do so.
Biden made a campaign promise to make the Supreme Court look more like America by nominating a black woman and he plans on doing just that. I have zero problem with that.
What I find most humorous about this is the subtext underlying the whole process, which says that out of all the qualified individuals, if Biden is going to pick a black woman, she cannot be the most qualified person for the position. This subtext is inherently racist, buit all of the people making this claim are saying that Biden is the racist because he is picking a black woman. This is truly the most baffling of stances.
I think most people fundamentally think it is wrong to narrow the field of candidates upfront. Diversity on the SCotUS certainly is a legitimate factor but making it the overriding factor and with focus on a particular race and gender is what likely does not sit well.
Same with the V.P. selection. It was clearly a political decision to narrow the selection set upfront. If Harris was the best choice (or at least a very good choice) then fine. But if Harris was the best out of an artificially limited selection set and much better candidates were eliminated by race or gender, then that seems like a flawed selection process.
That is likely the underlying sentiment in the poll IMO.
I don't think most people put that much thought into the question and just go with what they think the "correct" answer is. The recent history of US political theatre, I am very sorry to say, leads me to that jaded conclusion.
But really, there has to be some level of preselection. One would hope that the state of the US judicial system is such that Biden can make a selection from the subset that he set out and have that candidate for the position be qualified and competent.
Would you not?
You said:
The same goes for the picking of the VP. What could make you think that much better candidates were eliminated by race or gender ? Or, to put it another way, what makes you think that a qualified black woman would not be able to be found fill the VP position? I mean, there are a lot of people in this country. Plus, Joe did it...
This is the state of denial that the United States has come to: To be showered upon by the lies and misdirection of politicians and not be able to discern fact from fiction; To have separate and competing narratives about current events, one provably false, and to have a large portion believe that the false narrative is true.
We are being ripped apart from within by nothing but greed and a lust for power masquerading as people who actually give a shit.
If. I think it is likely that much better candidates were eliminated because the upfront criteria was so limiting. I do not know, I just think it is likely.
Where did I write that?
This position is a little odd. A "liberal " president is not going to nominate a conservative judge and vice versa. So the limiting begins right at the start.
You didn't. I paraphrased and used the familiar "you" instead of "one".
Or, to put it another way, what could make one think that a qualified black woman would not be able to be found fill the VP position?
My bad, and my apologies for the sloppy communication.
Yes, I noted upfront that the process is political. I was obviously referring to limitations beyond the natural political limitations.
Exactly.
Biden is refusing to consider a Latino for the simple fact that they are Latino. His supporters will not want it said that way, but that's the fact.
What the heaven are you suggesting a(nother) Latino for the court for? What part of Presidents get to nominate their choice (best or mid-level) that they want according to the Constitution. You're all constitution 'walking' until the word- "black" comes onto the 'field'? Or is it just something to 'toy' around with 'exhaustively.'
Why not a qualified black woman? And just so you know I am only JUST RECENTLY warming up to the idea of 4 women on the court. That many woman was not 'normative' for me—I am getting with the program and widening my mind. So don't come at me with the usual about bias.
Bottomline: Presidents as a consequence of service get to nominee lifetime officials on the high court. Additionally, they get another perk: To pardon damn near any crime in the country and as many people as they please, even all at once!
So what is all this writhing and wringing of the hands about?
Do not insult intelligent black women; you can't get away with it.
Read it again. I merely said Biden is discriminating against them.
I'm sure you thought that made sense when you typed it.
There is no reason at all why a black woman should not be considered.
You're biased as fuck, pal. Why would it make a difference how many women there are?
Do at least attempt to read people's comments. I realize completely what the President's job is. That doesn't mean he isn't doing it in a racist manner.
I'm not a fan of racism.
Do cite me insulting black women. Please. Look very carefully. You might even have to read my comments. You clearly haven't done so yet.
Do try to be coy. See if it works for you any better. That's all I have for that comment. You can call me racist all you wish; its mere projection and so you know that I am aware - it's the new republican/conservative 'go to' - (look in your daily talking points package its there). Trump calls black professionals racist now too. See? We. See. You. In. All. Your. Displays.
You're CONNECTED to republican talking points 'daily' as (how did you put it?) fuck, pal!
Your comment is interesting and brings several thoughts to mind:
What should happen in an ideal world would be making the best decisions for the nation regardless of bias.
We all know that what will happen will be a result of partisan dynamics.
My guess is that an Independent president would still have certain aspects of his or her reality that is on the job "performative"? Eh? The pressures of idealism are felt by everybody? An independent president would still have to work around or cooperate with partisans to get his or her nominee(s) selected to the life-time appointment!
I cannot imagine an independent PotUS. We will never see such an animal.
That would be a breath of fresh air though.
Now that we will never see. Clearly many are only driven by bias and/or partisanship.
Well certainly not you or I in our lifetimes, but with the hateful division the two parties have managed to muster over the last few decades, and the out of control debt they have both created, there will be a "reset", and it won't be pretty. Our children and grand-children will likely live to see it, and after much pain and suffering perhaps we will have learned something, and new leaders will emerge free from the shackles of the partisan stranglehold we find ourselves in today. If ever we've needed to evolve as a species, it is now.
Never say "Never." Freewill, I know you did not say it! Just adding to the thread at this juncture.
(A mythical Spirit coursing through the air picks up on all the transmissions of "spoken" or even mentally considered, "nevers" and exhausts itself making them come to be.)
It is not very likely. I suspect you agree.
Shouldn't you say "obviously he is going to try to do so"?
I was referring to Biden’s role: nomination. Biden promised to nominate; he did not promise to seat.
All of the potential nominees who have been mentioned in the media are FAR MORE QUALIFIED than Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. So, what's the problem?
Let's see all the proof you have managed to accumulate to support that wild-ass 'theory".
[Deleted]
Lets see you do something, anything.
be more specific, JR, if you are just going to post random shit to me demanding stuff.
in other words you cant
Can't WHAT. JR?
Man, I ASKED you to be more specific, and instead you become even more obtuse?
No thanks!
SMMFH
[Deleted]
I suppose making wild-ass statements without a shred of proof is now acceptable to the left.
Should make for far fewer arguments on here regarding unproven claims demanded to be proven, as we no longer have to do that according to you.
You know people can see this, right?
Just yet more unsubstantiated bullshit.
Another day ending in a "y".
You know I'm not the least bit interested in anything you say, right?
If people could back their claims up, they WOULD.
Simple as that.
When they can't even make an attempt to prove their wild-ass claims, you know they just don't have anything at all.
[Deleted]
There are 20 people here who back up their claims more than you do. [Deleted]
i can't even IMAGINE the mental gymnastics required to come up with something so damn funny!
[deleted]
Well, hey, you know me. I LOVE pointing out hypocritical statements.
Do me a solid and let me know when that momentous occasion will occur. I'll be sure to mark it on my calendar so I don't miss it.
Or you could just follow the conversation to get the gist of it.
The problem is not for Republicans. Here is the problem: The failing Bidan again faces a decision. He can pick a qualified liberal in the mold of Justice Breyer or he can bow to his progressive wing and saddle the court with a new radicalism and put forward another version of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, all anger, bluster and fiery opinions. Based on his single year as president, I think we can almost predict what he'll do. If Republicans didn't need more enthusiasm from their base for the midterms, that should be the icing on the cake.
The Republican Party is so extreme that if Biden were to nominate Breyer today, the right-wing propaganda machine would have shit fits, and Cruz, Hawley and the rest of the reactionaries would call him a radical and a communist.
If one actually bothers to do a modicum of research, one finds that the Democrats are the ones opposing Republican-nominated SCOTUS members at FAR greater rates than the GOP opposes Democratic-nominated ones.
But please, regale me with some tall tales about Republicans!!!
Trolling comments will not receive any further response.
I'd be rich if I got paid every time some leftists said that when asked a tough question, or asked to do any research on their own.
Yep, when you don’t have a cogent response, accuse the person you disagree with of trolling.
SOP for many here.
Says the guy who does no research and barely posts any content.
Asking questions incessantly is not content. Its a shame what you are allowed to get away with on this forum. The other guy isnt much better.
Well, opinions do vary on that .....
another silly response.
Its hard to take anyone fixated on Trump seriously, some insane conspiracy theory can't be far off.
Paraphrasing MLK Jr, SCOTUS nominees should be chosen for the quality of their qualifications and the content of their character, not by the color of their skin or their gender.
Don't dare try to play games with black women qualifications to serve on SCOTUS, Sparty On. Care to point out where each nominee(s) falls 'short'? Please proceed. . . . Or, desist.
You might have a point if that is actually what I did but since I didn’t ...... yawn!
You can clarify yourself. Oh look, time and space lies before you. Please tell us why you felt it necessary to remind us of MLK's statement. What were we lacking? Please write in 'layman's words.
Lol ..... you are owed no clarification. The meaning of my comment is self evident ..... to most anyway.
Yeah. Thought so. Just another instance of SSDD feelings and continued outrages from some conservatives.
Nope, you’re wrong again.
It's called, "stalling" SO. SOSDD.
Care to point out where he said anything of the sort?
Seems that the only one who doesn't understand what Sparty is saying is YOU.
The proposition that the main consideration here should be the color of ones skin or their gender, is simply preposterous to anyone but the most bigoted individual.
It is hard to argue with someone when they put words in your mouth and argue the words they invented.
Lol ..... such is the typical internet blog .....
Peanut gallery response. Collect 2¢ here. And let me add this: You made yourself ABUNDANTLY clear with something you wrote heading to the November 2020 election. I have never forgotten it and think about it every time you enter discussions: Feigning friendship and a single shot to the back of heads.
Came through strong and clear.
I made myself abundantly clear in 6.1.8
You forgot that Black, female, and qualified is the order of the day. It just puts on display some conservative silliness to ignore the qualifications just to pick at race and gender. No one cares about petty conservatives. If you ask me, some conservatives are ready for museum shelves. God knows, it's just too much trouble from a fading group of hypocrites and old-hens trying to peck and vex. Always mumbling and bitching about the good other people are trying to do for other than themselves.
And Dr King would have said Good Character and Well Qualified, Being the main issues, being black and female would have been ancillary to the selection...
But then It's plain, character and qualification take a back seat to race and gender in todays democrat party... Image is everything....
And again you are absent the point. Black women are qualified to serve on SCOTUS as they are to serve on federal courts. They follow the career steps and still get 'pushback' from you?
You keep returning to "race and gender" (the obvious talking point): strange for we have Amy Barrett Comey and Clarence Thomas, both conservatives, seated on our high court. Speaks for itself you see the two justices as qualified. So is this the usual gripe against liberals, or this combination of race and ideology that is a 'no' for you?
And do write in layman's terms. Communicate.
Did I say they weren't? No I didn't despite your characterization... And no pushback, if they are qualified and of good character than by all means nominate, approve and seat them...
But the president of the united states stating publicly that the first criteria of his choice is skin color and what sexual equipment they have? and that was said before the issue of a replacement SCJ actually became an actual consideration...
Which proves that it means skin color and sexual role/capacity is more important to him than character and qualifications....
And that is the plain truth of the matter... Despite your obvious partisan babbling otherwise...
Yep, one wonders if they are really that bigoted or just towing the party line.
So your 'beef' if there is one is with the president, and not about qualifications or character? So why bait us with @6.1.15 "Image is everything" no mention of a president in any way at all entire comment? Very disingenuous or piss poor COMMUNICATION. A president owes his constituents who have demonstrated voting for him or her in the past, solemnity in the presence, or risk becoming DISINGENUOUS.
Libertarians, who are republican and conservatives, and trumpists, are not going to recommend or support a liberal justice of any stripe. Why? Because Trump does not support the 'position.'
Some conservatives should know partisanship because of the daily 'kissing of the ring' as they pick up those talking points.
Now you resort to personal attacks and Trump hate... the standard position of a liberal who can't respond in any coherent manner to the point made...
Weak, VERY weak....
Haters gotta hate .....
Your 'points' are not coherent, Nowhere Man. You seem to think you can invoke some privilege here—nope, you can not. Tell the truth and leave the partisan 'butchery' to that Old fart: Donald J. Trump.
Man, you are a laugh a minute.... Default to the racist claim every single time...
Must be nice to be the only non-racist on the planet... {chuckle}
Statistically, it actually doesn't play nearly the role people think it does.
People who follow politics avidly project their own beliefs and convince themselves that the judges are partisan whackjobs, but the numbers don't actually bear it out.
Since 1986, at least 40% of the cases in any SCOTUS session have resulted in unanimous verdicts.