LeviF

And again the question needs to be asked: our laws and Constitution are set down in black and white, forever inscribed into our nation's founding documents as well as acts of Congress. Why, then, does "diversity" enter into the equation? Why does any group need "representation" in the reading and interpreting of laws?

But is she trouble?

Six of the current justices clerked for a Supreme Court Justice. Samuel Alito was a US Attorney. Thomas was chairman of the EEOC. Sotomayor was never high up in political spheres, but caught the attention of the right person at the right time to get vaulted to a federal court seat.

There have been 115 Supreme Court justices in US history. There are over 300 million people in the United States. I'm not sure why diversity is even a conversation.

Your mom is a real one

As in she didn't attend Harvard or Yale Law Schools.

There are some Native American US district court judges but currently no Court of Appeals judges. Ada Brown is one to watch. Though her credentials aren't what you normally see on the USSC. Oh and she's a twofer. She's african- and native-american.

Since when has "qualified" mattered to leftists anyway? Elena Kagan was propped up with zero judicial experience. Just nominate Michelle Obama and have done with it already.

They’ve either had to accept that their worldview inevitably ends in petty tyranny and change it accordingly, or refuse to acknowledge their error and simply fall silent. Many chose the latter. Travel back to the year 2000 and tell a liberal that the Democratic Party would openly call for state-sanctioned sponsorship and top-down information management as well as open war in Eastern Europe in the year 2022 and they’d slap you.

"Google 'law school scam'"

There’s no backlash because the ruling class defines the state religion’s tenets such as “racism” and “sexism” and can therefore change their definitions without meaningful pushback.

I guess the real question is where are they going to find a black woman who is baptized into the Roman Catholic Church? Tbh I'm not sure if black jew or black catholic is a tougher ask.

The liberals appointed to the USSC ever since Earl Warren took the center seat have been unmitigated disasters.

Left-leaning justice retires during blue white house instead of chancing dying during red white house challenge: COMPLETED

Or get elected to Congress.

Not so much luck. Ash Barty is a machine. Making the quarterfinals was no small feat.

All this crowing about "free press" while the WH basically conducts state media sessions and their favorite news stations openly employ "former" spooks and military intelligence.

Just take it off. Odds are nobody will say anything. And if you get kicked out then congratulations you managed to free yourself of a ***** gym.

These dudes glow like a seedy motel room under backlight.

Soon as I saw the thread title I knew this would be an old man yells at cloud thread. Maybe they should do weekend at Meat Loaf’s for those of you with one foot in the grave.

So there's layers to this that can be concisely summed up as "NPR is fake news." If you want more, read on. Ms. Totenberg, and by extension NPR, gambled big with this story. The USSC is one of the more closed-off public-facing institutions in the USG. They DO NOT leak. And as a rule they do not respond to fake news about them. Remember the Lin Wood schizo-degenerative breakdown? When he accused the Chief ***** Justice of being a pedophile? The Supreme Court didn't even respond to that. You can lie your ass off about Supreme Court justices and they will never dignify your lie with a response. So this seemed like a decent gamble: toss in your $10,000 (Gorsuch defies masking request, a lie) to win $100 (clout, a name, etc.), it's a sure thing. Well that blew up in their faces. Gorsuch, Sotomayor, and the Chief Justice all issued statements flatly denying that such a thing took place (and they probably hate that they did, the press office of the USSC usually handles all statements and they don't do it often, I think they had like 20 press releases in all of 2021). So now NPR retreats with a broader angle: oh, that story was meant to be illustrative of the broader point which, by the way, the Supreme Court hasn't denied. NPR knows that the justices are unlikely to speak on the issue again because finding out whether or not they all get along is a specious and irrelevant pursuit. And so yes, they haven't denied the "broader point" of the original story, but they wouldn't regardless of its truthfulness. Which is why even the response, as well as the story, is fake news.

After getting rejected by like 50 outfits.

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o102 It's almost as if someone thinks they've been taken for a ride.

Reminder that, five years ago, the New York Times published images of murder effigies of Trump staffers and then spent the next four years crowing about "divisive rhetoric" and advocating for mass banning on social media platforms.