President Reagen speaks out re: importance of nominating a minority for Supreme Court Justice.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Reagan nominates first person in history from this minority to the Supreme Court! (Photo: NYTimes)
On July 7, 1981, President Ronald Reagan appointed an Arizona judge, Sandra Day O’Connor, to the Supreme Court. She was confirmed two months later, becoming the first woman to serve on the nation’s highest court.
In announcing the appointment, President Reagan declared, “I made a commitment that one of my first appointments to the Supreme Court vacancy would be the most qualified woman that I could possibly find.
Brought on to be a conservative voice, Justice O’Connor established a more moderate position. She developed a reputation for appreciating the fine nuances of the law and for casting the deciding vote in key cases when the court was split.
Tags
Who is online
463 visitors
On July 7, 1981, President Ronald Reagan appointed an Arizona judge, Sandra Day O’Connor, to the Supreme Court. She was confirmed two months later, becoming the first woman to serve on the nation’s highest court.
From the article....
he had to show the thumpers he still had a dick. lucky for us raygun is exactly where he can now serve the US taxpayers best.
In March 2009, Ms. O’Connor told ABC’s “Good Morning America” that more Americans can name a judge on “American Idol” than can name the three branches of government.
Concerned that young people lack civics knowledge, she founded a Web site, iCivics, as “a Web-based education project designed to teach students civics and inspire them to be active participants in our democracy.”
Reagan's deserves credit for his precedent-setting decision to appoint someone from this particular minority (a woman) to the nation's highest court. His decision to do this has set a precedent and has led to several other women bing appointed-- something that would have been unheard of previously!
Three other women have followed Justice O’Connor to the Supreme Court: Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993), Sonia Sotomayor (2009) and Elena Kagan (2010). All three are currently serving, making the current court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, one-third female.
Interestingly enough, Reagan never said he was limiting his search to ONLY one race of woman.
Imagine THAT!!!!
And perhaps even more astounding-- Reagan never said he was limiting his search to ONLY one religion!
Absolutely Astounding!
Proving that he was smarter than Democrats could ever hope for Biden to be.
Thanks for pointing that out!
WTF?
I did not "point that out"!
(I was going going to say "What planet are you on"...but decided against it)
Most of the Trumpublican populists would call Reagan a RINO these days. He appointed a women to the SCOUTUS, gave amnesty to immigrants and consulted a astrologist.
Most of the Trumpublican populists would call Reagan a RINO these days. He appointed a women to the SCOUTUS
Good point, Trump populists would never support a woman nominee to the Supreme Court.
Trump supporters have been seriously misogynistic track record. You can deny and deflect all you want, but it doesn't make it less true.
What nonsense.
There is no evidence of that.
supporters have been seriously misogynistic track record. You can deny and deflect all you want, but it doesn't make it less true.
C'mon man. You just claimed would Trump supporters wouldn't support a woman nominee with the Barrett example right in front of you.
Talk about deny and deflect...
I did no such thing. I said:
AND
You're the one that twisted general statements to fit a specific.
But why should Trump supporters care about facts?
Prove it!
They have all the "alternative" facts anyone needs.
Followed immediately by He appointed a women to the SCOUTUS,
Are you kidding me by trying to pretend there's no connection between your sentences? You normally aren't that incoherent so I assume you were trying to make an argument and not just randomly listing concepts with no connection between them.
I remember that!
Of course some Democrats tried to use that as a criticism-- although if it ever leaked that a Democrat consulted an Astrologer the Republicans would've done the same thing.
lol
BTW, many (most?) successful people in high places have consulted Astrologers.
IIRC, it was Cornelius Vanderbilt who, when asked if millionaires consulted Astrologers, replied:
Millionaires don't, billionaires do.
Now that I think of it, I'm sure the quote is accurate...but I first heard it long ago (from a top Astrologer who at the time was one of the top market timers on Wall Street-- it may have been JP Morgan not Vanderbilt.
When I first started using the Internet (Soooo long ago!) I was having a discussionn with a devoutly religious person. I said to him that I assumed he didn't believe in Astrology. To my surprise he said he felt there was considerable validity to it.
One of the things he mentioned is that star that appeared and the correlation with the birth of Jesus. (That's the sort of thing Astrologers look at).
I believe it was Nancy that did that
Nancy did the talking but Quigley was called as many as 8 times a day on everything from Airforce One takeoff and landing times to Gorbachev's star chart. At a cost of $3000 a month.
Gee, how to explain Trump actually nominated a woman to SCOTUS, and all Senate Republicans save one voted for her confirmation while Democrats voted en masse against her?
Should be quite the spin!
A major fuck-up on Reagan's part. He should have known better than to trust Democrats.
Perhaps Democrats should dig him up and impeach him for that!
Most of the Trumpublican party would follow (are following) Trump off a cliff. Populism isn't a long term governing solution so good luck with that.
That's why so many true Conservatives in the Republican party are opposed to Trump. They know he's not a true conservative (a political phlosophy opposed to "Populism").
Now, that is amazing spin.
One of the better known example: the group of true conservative Republicans making up The Lincoln Project. They see populism as a force that will weaken the Republican party-- and at the very least corrupt its real conservative credentials.
Here's one of the Lincoln Project's recent videos (IMO one of the best ones they've ever done!):
"Bloodlines"
Where do you get such fanciful notions?
If they declared themselves Martians, would you parrot that too? The staff of the Lincoln Project is indistinguishable from any far left activist group.
Well the degree of their stupidity-- and gullibility!-- may seem stupid to you-- but it is a fact!
A great example of a false appeal of purity OR the no true Scottsman defense. Top notch!
Spin is spin.
Reading the responses and what the responses are TO is helpful, and I suggest you try it sometime.
Well, no. It's a fact that the Lincoln project is staffed by progressive activists who were never Republicans or "conservatives". It's not a secret. .
It's amazing anyone would even think that's controversial.
Don't give them any ideas. You know they are dumb enough to try it.
He was decidedly more liberal than Barack Obama. He was a proven Keynesian. He raised taxes 3 times, passed sweeping worker rights reform, AND did all the things you mentioned.
What made him a great president was the fact he put pragmatism ahead of impractical idealism.
Well, that's not just true.
Based on their actions, it is. I judge them not on what they say, but on what they do.
Most importantly, I ignore the idiocy from the brainless extremist sets of their detractors (not you, obviously).
Obama is the undisputed king of trickle-down economics and exploding income and wealth disparity. Reagan was the king of government spending to create middle-class jobs.
sed on their actions, it is. I judge them not on what they say, but on what they do
I agree it’s overtly simple to reduce Reagan or Obama to avatars of conservatism or liberalism who never deviated from their respective ideologies. But it’s also important to remember that we operate in a system of divided powers and Reagan, for instance, never had a Republican Congress. So every piece of legislation associated with Reagan was the result of winning over Democrats to vote with him. And Democrats never fail to remind everyone how Republicans controlled Congress for six of Obama’s years in office.
So yes, the fact that he signed an amnesty bill that passed Congress with the understanding enforcement would be the next step was not the "true Conservative" position. But Obama bypassed Congress and issued executive orders to grant amnesty. Hard to see how that makes Reagan “more liberal.” The same is true of taxes, or the economy, Reagan’s admin fought for deregulation, Obama essentially nationalized health care. Judges? Reagan had two moderate conservatives (the arch conservative Bork, was of course Borked) and the Conservative Scalia confirmed. Obama nominated a liberal and a crazy liberal. I don’t think anyone can argue with a straight face that Obama nominated more conservative judges on the whole than Reagan.
Whether we are talking about social issues, labor law (ask a union member what they thought of Reagan), environmental issues, etc, it’s hard to look at the entirety of their Presidencies and make a case that Obama was more conservative on that topic, let alone all of them as a whole. Reagan generally started from the right and moved left as the political reality dictated and Obama the opposite. Did that sometimes lead them to positions that the extremes of their party didn’t like? Sure, but lack of purity is a lot different than claiming they belong with the other ideology.
The point being the presidency is not a political job... The worst presidents treat it as such, while the greatest, work within the atmosphere of the times to do the job...
The point being it is a job, not a political platform... Reagan is a great president cause he understood this, Obama is not cause he didn't...
Kennedy was a great president cause he understood this, LBJ was not for the same reasons Obama isn't....
Clinton became a much better president than he started out being cause he learned that you have to actually do the job... Biden has fallen flat on his face and is a disaster cause he views the job as a political one...
When it really isn't...
But he did. That's the point.
No, he simply said we weren't going to lock them up just yet.
Naaah. Not even remotely. They basically passed a sort of Section 8 voucher program for healthcare that doesn't work very well.
Obama nominated tokens. In that regard, yes, he was more liberal.
I understand what they think. My whole point is that people generally have erroneous perceptions.
Obama actively funded the biggest expansion of wealth and income inequality in American history, all while sitting by watching US manufacturing and union jobs steadily decline.
His actions were almost those of an oligarch, no matter how well intended.
Reagan, per Chuck Schumer, deserves a lot of credit for nominating the first non white male to the Supreme Court.
Good point.
One of the unfortunate effects of the failed Trump Presidency has been to give many Americans the mistaken impression that all Republicans are racist-- which is certainly not the case!
Whoosh!
Republicans shouldn't worry what idiots are willing to fall for.
Reagan, per Chuck Schumer, deserves a lot of credit for nominating the first non white male to the Supreme Court.
Good point.
Somebody ought to seed an article about that!
This seed is erroneous.
Women have been a majority in the USA for some time.
Nope.
Not at all.
Maybe the seed isn't wrong, it is just you who are wrong.
Here are some of your own words (I hope they are yours, anyways) from post #3:
Are women a minority in America?
Stats tell me no.
What do they say to you?
Denial is not a good look for you.
Nope.
Not at all.
I recommend you read it-- all of it.
Perhaps a bit more slowly and carefully.
Man, this site is getting boring. Here's another seed on a topic that's already been beaten to death so that one side can fight with the other side and both sides can play their partisan games.
So Biden wants to nominate a black woman. Big fucking deal... Seems that the president usually gets to nominate who they want, so this is much of a non-subject. I am much more concerned that he nominates someone who will make a good judge. I've read a few tidbits about some of the potential names and I have reservations about some of them. One has had several major decisions reversed on appeal, another has basically stated her willing to work against the freedom of religion clause.
As I said before I don't care if it's female, male, binary, neutered, robotic.. I really don't care. All I want is a jurist who believes in and works to follow the law and the constitution. That seems much more important to me than this constant back and forth that passes for discourse on this board.
The best most qualified to actually do the job...
100% agreed...
Race and gender crap should have no place in the selection process...
Excellent point Nowhere Man-- excellent!
(In fact its probably not much of a stretch to say that your remark is beyond excellent- - it actually may be truly brilliant!!!
Probably even deserving of a RANT award!
In fact-- here's a wonderful seed that proves just how right you are:
President Reagan Speaks Out Re: Importance Of Nominating A Minority For Supreme Court Justice.
In fact-- here's a wonderful seed that proves just how right you are:
President Reagan Speaks Out Re: Importance Of Nominating A Minority For Supreme Court Justice.
How right -- actually . . . how very far Right!
Probably even deserving of a RANT award!
_____________________________
* RANT Award= " Random Act of Newstalkerness " Award!