Obama continues unbroken streak, nominates another Harvard lad to Supreme Court


I wonder if, someday, my boy will grow up to be a justice of the Supreme Court?

Obama will nominate U.S. District Court of Appeals judge  Merrick Garland, a 63-year-old white Jewish male Harvard Law graduate, to replace Anton Scalia today, thus continuing a tradition of appointing only judges who matriculated at Harvard or Yale.

“Quite frankly,” the president told FWIW, “there are no other law schools worth any sort of attention, and besides, with all 8 surviving justices coming from those schools and still mourning the loss of another Harvidian, I’d hate to make them uncomfortable by forcing them to rub shoulders with some bit of white trash from, say, the University of Chicago. I mean diversity is one thing, breaking tradition is another.”

There’s not a chance in Hell this poor sacrificial lamb is going to see the Supreme Court doing Obama’s tenure, but it’s a safe bet that the person who’s next nominated will also be a grad of the requisite Ivy.

Unless Trump wins; then all bets are off – he might even return to the old practice of picking non-judges.


Filed under Uncategorized

36 responses to “Obama continues unbroken streak, nominates another Harvard lad to Supreme Court

  1. Anonymous

    I think we need a U Conn grad to round it out.

  2. Anonymous

    This can only strengthen the case that Obama is a secret Muslim. Nominating Jewish candidates is a diversionary tactic.

  3. Anonymous

    Looks perfectly qualified to me but then that means nothing to the rabid politicians.

  4. Don’t be so optimistic that Garland will not get the R’s to approve him. I read that before making this announcement today, Obama (ha, okay, his people) called every senator to see about getting support. He has all the Dem voters and probably half the Rs. Ryan and McConnell are Obama’s bitches and will cave.

    I can’t take credit for this comment seen on the AZ blog, but it was good enough an example of my point to steal.
    Senate: we cave, we cave not, we cave, we cave not, we cave…. How many petals are on this flower?

    I also read that Garland’s big attraction for Obama is his rulings on guns. Obama wants that as part of his legacy.

    • Anonymous

      Ryan and McConnell will cave because it will hurt the party at the election if they don’t. Obama chose well, it is hard to make a really strong case against this guy.

      • Agree and I think that was all part of the reason Garland was the nominee. Hard to make a case against the man so IF the Rs do block him or refuse to bring up the vote, Obama can continue his anti-R tirades on cue to Trump’s successes. In my jaded opinion, this nomination is very little about Garland the man and his opinions and all about Obama, his hatred of the Rs, and his perceived legacy

        • The guy is anti 2nd and both Biden and Schumer are on record opposing Supreme CT noms for a prez in his last year in office.

          Plus this prez famously filibustered a totally qualified nominee. And the Dems hopelessly politicized the process w/ their disgusting behavior during the Bork hearings.

  5. Anonymous

    God bless our great and amazing President Obama! 🤗🤗🤗

  6. The left is deeply disappointed that O has nominated a person of pallor:


    We all know that the cure for racial discrimination is more racial discrimination.

  7. nimber54

    “Harvidian” ??

    I understand from my Yale-alum brother that
    Yale = “Elis”
    Harvard = “Johns”

  8. burningmadolf

    Anon at 1:58: Again?

  9. Harvard men would insist that they don’t have to pay for sex; thousands of trophy wives prove otherwise.

  10. How ’bout Affirmative Action in reverse?
    Constitution does not say you need to be Lawyer….time for a proud laborer or farmer or Physician….Psychiatrist. …
    Enough of Afirm Actors how ’bout real actors?

  11. Walt

    Dude –

    Wasn’t Elizabeth Taylor a real cutie when she was younger? Is that a still picture from National Velvet? And she grew into an absolutely gorgeous woman. Until she chubbed up and looked like this:

    And I think she married Andy Rooney like seven times! What is that all about?

    Your Pal,

  12. Maitre d'Oyer et Terminer

    What’s REALLY needed on SCOTUS are trench lawyers not bloviating professorial types. We need at least 4 Supremes who’ve actually seen the inside of a criminal courtroom and dealt with real time 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th & 6th Amendment issues. I nominate Scott Greenfield who writes this fine blog: http://blog.simplejustice.us/

  13. Anonymous

    he will be approved …after Hilary is sworn in

  14. Greenwich Gal

    Quite frankly – I think the lack of intellectual diversity on the court is appalling! Why aren’t people up in arms about this! There are OTHER GREAT SCHOOLS IN AMERICA, PEOPLE!!!
    Michigan, Stanford, Berkeley, Duke, UNC, UCLA, UVA, University of Chicago, Texas, Northwestern – just to name a hand full.
    I’m disgusted.

    • Anonymous

      GG, from an intellectual diversity perspective, the students who are graduates of those elite schools are the same type of students who graduated from Harvard/Yale…most undoubtedly also applied to Harvard/Yale and barely missed the admissions )by an LSAT point and perhaps a hundredth of a GPA) or were offered a better scholarhips/financial aid package from a “lesser” (albeit, still elite) school

      • Greenwich Gal

        Not true at all. Lots of great kids get denied at those schools. Harvard and Yale also recruit athletes, affirmative action students, legacies and donor kids. They aren’t all geniuses I assure you! Quite simply, there are equivalently great schools out there. Maybe even better.
        But – if we are all screaming about “diversity” in this country – which we are – perhaps the President ought to look at the court as well.

        • Anonymous

          You still haven’t answered the question, how does appointing a UVA or Michigan grad achieve “intellectual diversity”. There may well be very well qualified legal minds from schools other than Harvard Law but I think you are misunderstanding the definition of intellectual diversity with racial or socioeconomic diversity.

        • Anonymous

          I know the process intimately. All those schools have very similar admission criteria (and, btw, for law school admissions, athletes, legacies and donor kids get very little preferential treatment since law schools are very concerned about the effect it would have on their “standards” which are almost exclusively based on LSAT/GPA)

          If you are truly interested in intellectual diversity, you should add Howard Univeristy to your list.

    • Anonymous

      How about a University of Charleston grad?

    • Anonymous

      Laughing at the idea of “intellectual diversity”

      • Greenwich Gal

        You shouldn’t.

        • Anonymous

          It’s all circular, affirmative action for Republicans because of a predominantly Liberal view point. Kind of ironic.

      • Anonymous

        “Diversity is important in law schools, and if we’re going to have an intellectually diverse faculty, we need to find a way to integrate more conservatives into teaching positions, even if that means a qualified, liberal law professor loses his or her “spot” on the tenure track for a colleague that leans a little harder to the right.

        I’d be all for that. But conservatives can’t admit that they made need a diversity program to combat generations of systemic selection bias. “

  15. FF

    Hey, Scalia went to Harvard. I say we go back in time and stop the madness before it gets aborning

    • Maitre d'Oyer et Terminer

      too late fer dat Fudrucker…. but I’ll wholeheartedly second your motion now!

  16. The law school faculties are all for diversity. So long as it’s about race, but not about ideas. If Harvard were to search for an originalist law professor…well, that would be taking this diversity thing too far, you see……….

    Harvard Law Professor Dershowitz on Cruz:

    Now that the Republican Presidential field is narrowing, we notice that Trump declined to debate Cruz and Kasich next Monday. Because Cruz would reduce him to tears.