I don’t see why two justices appointed by Republican Presidents 30+ years ago would be a reason to worry, especially when Biden doesn’t need any Republican votes in this situation.
Because Biden is a conservative at his core, and whether he needs Republican votes or not, he wants them. His political instincts would tend to mean he is likely to produce a moderate who will not do enough to steer against the Court's rightward tack.
Thomas sucks, but O'Connor turned out to be a moderate and a swing justice. The Religious Right tried to prevent her confirmation because they suspected, correctly, that she would uphold Roe v. Wade.
Precisely the issue here is that you do not want Biden to appoint a swing justice or a moderate. You want a solid liberal.
My point was that the political leanings of a judge can turn out to be completely different than what they originally appeared as.
A nonsense chart. Yes, Biden is rhetorically "liberal" by American standards, but America is a very right-wing country and Joe Biden's political instincts have always trended conservative or at minimum moderate. He is to the left of Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton, but that is hardly saying anything.
What do you define as "right-wing"?
A lack of a robust social safety net and emphasis on individualist free-market capitalism, support for right-wing governments such as Saudi Arabia, a strong societal aversion to communism and socialism, and a general political culture to the right of comparable peers (in this case Germany, the UK, France, etc.). That the United States' political culture is positioned in the political right is not particularly controversial; in political science it's basically a given.
I think most right-wingers support Saudi Arabia because of oil, also it has military ties with the american government and they share the same enemy - Iran - , but not because it's an absolute monarchy. Having a society with a strong societal aversion to communism and socialism is such a great trait to count on. But I agree with you, on overall the US is more right leaning than Western Europe. I think it has to do with the Cold War. If I'm not mistaken, socialist parties almost won the elections in Italy and France during the Cold War.
The Cold War is a factor, but the dismantling of the New Deal and Great Society under Reagan and Clinton, and the hegemony enjoyed by neoliberal ideology in the United States more generally, is a greater factor as to why the United States is so right-wing. When Jen Psaki scoffs at sending free COVID tests by asking "how will we pay for that" - that's neoliberal ideology speaking.
A prime example would be former Justice David Souter, nominated by George H.W. Bush in 1990. Republicans and many Democrats thought he’d be a reliably conservative vote, but Biden (then-Senate Judiciary Chair) pushed Souter’s confirmation ahead when he (correctly) suspected that Souter was pro-choice.
1. Which should be the only relevant standards when evaluating an American President.
1. Absolutely not, America has shifted egregiously to the right in the past half-century and simply accepting that is unacceptable. The point is to change it.
1 & 2. So what is "left" to you?
The Left (tm) is anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, environmentalist, and internationalist. It strongly favors labor rights without trying to balance it with concessions to management, and favors a radical restructuring of society on economic, political, and social grounds.
Putin isn't "evil." He is the leader of a nation-state and is beholden to act in that state's interests. States are rational actors in international affairs; they will behave in predictable ways which serve their interests when placed in a specific situation with specific stimuli. NATO is a military bloc which exists almost exclusively to oppose Russia, so how can we be surprised that Russia opposes the further expansion of NATO directly on it border? Guaranteeing that NATO will not seek the accession of Ukraine is absolutely a reasonable concession to make to avoid war. The driving factors of Russian foreign policy for the past two centuries has been to maintain hegemony in eastern Europe and preserve its access to warm water ports. If you impede these interests, you are going to get pushback and bellicosity. That's just how it goes. Calling the leader of Russia "evil" for reacting in a predictable way to what has been accepted since the early 90s would reasonably be considered provocation by Russia is reductive and lazy. We need to be able to talk honestly and frankly about international relations without resorting to this sort of jingoistic vocabulary.
You're too naive. Ukraine has been part of russian sphere of influence since the end of the Soviet Union. If Ukraine joins NATO, then the Russian government will have to deal with american and european troops on its borders. Things are not that simple. How would you react if the mexican government let the chinese/russian build a military base there and send troops to the US border?
And Russia has every right to take it as provocation when NATO expands to press up against it borders, which frankly it is - this was nearly-unanimous opinion among political scientists in the early 90s. Are you suggesting that some nations have more of a right than other nations to act in their own national self-interests?
