The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Tumeni on April 07, 2022, 09:38:39 PM
-
On completion of the vote which confirmed Jackson as the first coloured lady to sit on the Supreme Court, a considerable number of Repugnicans stomped out of the chamber in the huff.
Ted Cruz was especially performative, taking extra time to stand, button his jacket, replace his chair at his desk, all very deliberately, just to make sure the cameras saw him, and then he stomped out.
What a bunch of whiny little be-atches.
-
Biden promised to nominate a black woman during his campaign. It's a gross abuse of power to specifically say "I will only nominate X race and X sex" merely to pander to racist and sexist "diversity" chasers. Her nomination marks yet another notch in history where race and sex is not only deemed important, it's deemed more important than anything else. In my eyes, her nomination is tainted forever, as Biden specifically said he'd nominate someone for existing as a woman and being black. It would have been much better had he never said anything at all. Biden promised to make it happen over two years ago (https://www.npr.org/2022/01/30/1076798457/biden-may-fulfill-a-campaign-promise-to-black-voters-with-his-supreme-court-nomi).
This is also the same reason he chose Kamala Harris. Not because he believed she was the most qualified for the job of Vice President, but because she happened to have the correct race and sex. His advisers told him it would be a great move to vacuum up racist democratic voters (and they were right).
-
The Supreme Court is not and has never been a purely merit-based court comprised of the nine best-qualified jurists in the country. Choosing its members has always been a political process that by design has to meet with the approval of the Senate, and there are a number of factors beyond their experience and skill as a judge that are always taken into consideration. For example, there's ideology. Are conservatives wrong to always appoint conservative justices, or liberals wrong to always appoint liberal justices? There's also age, which is a particularly interesting one, because while there's no inherent conflict between searching for a qualified candidate and searching for one who happens to be of a certain race or gender, searching for an especially young candidate does have a tendency to rule out well-qualified ones. That's arguably what happened with Amy Coney Barrett; the Federalist Society (I won't bother pretending Trump had any input on the selection process outside of his final approval) almost certainly chose her mainly because they wanted someone young who could stay on the court for decades, which naturally led to the criticism that she wasn't qualified or experienced enough. Is deliberately choosing a black, female, and well-qualified candidate really so much worse than deliberately choosing a young, not-so-well-qualified candidate?
Something similar applies with the VP, which is nowadays more of a symbolic position than anything else (nobody thinks it's very likely that the president will die or resign, after all), and is typically chosen to appeal to voters as providing something that the presidential candidate lacks. Of course Harris being a woman and a person of color was key to her being picked as Biden's VP. I don't think that's inherently worse than, say, Mike Pence being picked as Trump's VP to cater to the religious right, who might otherwise have been scared off by Trump's sleaziness and long history of womanizing. Republicans and their identity politics, am I right?
-
Biden promised to nominate a black woman during his campaign. It's a gross abuse of power to specifically say "I will only nominate X race and X sex" merely to pander to racist and sexist "diversity" chasers. Her nomination marks yet another notch in history where race and sex is not only deemed important, it's deemed more important than anything else.
She's still better qualified than all the encumbents in a number of core metrics.
(https://external-preview.redd.it/B8UvASHANrukG4it6KOU4lPP9XV5TVw3DmXHvtQw1Q4.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=790a4fffb79cecd8bacd26f008919a1a1cd2ece8)
-
As if to reinforce the point, CNN reporter and others note that Lindsay Graham did not wear a tie for the confirmation, and thus was not allowed on the Senate floor; he apparently he voted "No" from the cloakroom. It did not escape their attention that he was wearing a tie earlier in the day for photo-ops, so must have deliberately taken it off.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FPxQdVLVgAQkQA2?format=jpg&name=900x900)
-
Biden promised to nominate a black woman during his campaign. It's a gross abuse of power to specifically say "I will only nominate X race and X sex" merely to pander to racist and sexist "diversity" chasers. Her nomination marks yet another notch in history where race and sex is not only deemed important, it's deemed more important than anything else. In my eyes, her nomination is tainted forever, as Biden specifically said he'd nominate someone for existing as a woman and being black. It would have been much better had he never said anything at all. Biden promised to make it happen over two years ago (https://www.npr.org/2022/01/30/1076798457/biden-may-fulfill-a-campaign-promise-to-black-voters-with-his-supreme-court-nomi).
This is also the same reason he chose Kamala Harris. Not because he believed she was the most qualified for the job of Vice President, but because she happened to have the correct race and sex. His advisers told him it would be a great move to vacuum up racist democratic voters (and they were right).
Appropriate thread title. Where were you when Barrett and Kavanagh were nominated? Oh right, you didn’t care that Trump nominated people specifically to fulfill his political agenda because it either doesn’t register with you or you agree with it.
She seems to be eminently qualified and helps your country move on from its racist past. Looks like a win to me.
-
Jackson received more votes (53 - 47) than Trump nominees Barrett (52 - 48) and Kavanaugh ((50 - 48), too ...
-
Appropriate thread title. Where were you when Barrett and Kavanagh were nominated? Oh right, you didn’t care that Trump nominated people specifically to fulfill his political agenda because it either doesn’t register with you or you agree with it.
I only support white men on the Supreme Court, as I, like you, judge nominees based on physical characteristics. If it's not a white man, I don't support their nomination. In the future I'll only vote for candidates that say "I will nominate a white man to the Supreme Court!" because apparently it's okay to promise that and then do it.
Also, I did discuss Kavanaugh extensively here, but you apparently weren't here to read that. Where were you when that happened? I guess you didn't care because you don't even remember it!
She seems to be eminently qualified and helps your country move on from its racist past. Looks like a win to me.
And on towards an even more racist future. You're not observing racism going away or being moved past. You're watching it being continued.
The Supreme Court is not and has never been a purely merit-based court comprised of the seven best-qualified jurists in the country.
As long as you admit she didn't earn the position on merit (and no one should or does, apparently), whatever else you say is needless fluff.
Biden promised to nominate a black woman during his campaign. It's a gross abuse of power to specifically say "I will only nominate X race and X sex" merely to pander to racist and sexist "diversity" chasers. Her nomination marks yet another notch in history where race and sex is not only deemed important, it's deemed more important than anything else.
She's still better qualified than all the encumbents in a number of core metrics.
(https://external-preview.redd.it/B8UvASHANrukG4it6KOU4lPP9XV5TVw3DmXHvtQw1Q4.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=790a4fffb79cecd8bacd26f008919a1a1cd2ece8)
She's the odd one out in this image. Doesn't that tend to imply that those extra categories aren't valid experience or actually relevant to the Supreme Court? Why do you assume she's 'better qualified' when you aren't familiar enough with those terms to know which ones are actually qualifications necessary to make a good judge?
-
(https://external-preview.redd.it/B8UvASHANrukG4it6KOU4lPP9XV5TVw3DmXHvtQw1Q4.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=790a4fffb79cecd8bacd26f008919a1a1cd2ece8)
She's the odd one out in this image. Doesn't that tend to imply that those extra categories aren't valid experience or actually relevant to the Supreme Court? Why do you assume she's 'better qualified' when you aren't familiar enough with those terms to know which ones are actually qualifications necessary to make a good judge?
By all means, make up another chart, and fill in the boxes for each justice on what you think are better core metrics than those already stated. You're telling me I'm "not familar" with the core metrics listed, but not specific on what you think those metrics should be. How much "familiarity" do I need to see if a justice has participated in public defending or not? Are you telling me I don't know what public defending is?
Tucker Carlson wanted to know Jackson's SAT scores. Do you think that's more relevant than (say) acting as a Public Defender?
-
Rushy: While I understand your position and you're not wrong, there's also the concept of normality that needs to be taken into account.
There was a time (1984 and earlier) that the idea of a woman being on the supreme court was unlikely. That parents told their little girls "Sorry, girls don't get to be supreme court justices" assuming said child wanted to be one. And until someone actually changed that, made it suddenly become normal, it stayed that way.
So Regan did just that. He nominated the first woman. And with her nomination it stopped being "unlikely" and became "normal".
And based on history, sometimes you just gotta force it at first so that everyone else after has a smoother time.
So yes, she was picked because she was a black woman. And that's kinda racist. But now its done and the next black woman who gets nominated won't have to be a political, racist choice.
Also, I suspect the republicans would have walked out regardless of who got nominated. This is the same group who refused to let Obama pick a nomination during an election year but sped through a nomination during an election year for Trump.
-
By all means, make up another chart, and fill in the boxes for each justice on what you think are better core metrics than those already stated. You're telling me I'm "not familar" with the core metrics listed, but not specific on what you think those metrics should be. How much "familiarity" do I need to see if a justice has participated in public defending or not? Are you telling me I don't know what public defending is?
Tucker Carlson wanted to know Jackson's SAT scores. Do you think that's more relevant than (say) acting as a Public Defender?
Regardless, my problem isn't related to her qualifications. Only Dave seems to understand the problem I have with the nomination.
A US President campaigned on nominating a black woman and then did it. That's it. There's no other facet to the discussion. My problem is this sort of behavior being validated by millions of people. What will be next on the diversity train? "My next nominee must be a transgender asian!" How extreme can it go before we must say "no, no, that's enough, don't do that"? How much racism and sexism is currently the acceptable amount? How much further should it go?
My next nominee must be from Iceland. No other person will do for me. It's Icelandic or else!
-
A US President campaigned on nominating a black woman
Amongst a host of other things.
How extreme can it go before we must say "no, no, that's enough, don't do that"? How much racism and sexism is currently the acceptable amount? How much further should it go?
You tell us. You're the one protesting at the moment. Do you think, following the long, long history of white men being appointed to the SC, it's too soon for a coloured female appointee?
-
How extreme can it go before we must say "no, no, that's enough, don't do that"? How much racism and sexism is currently the acceptable amount? How much further should it go?
When someone with questionable experience and qualifications (can we say Amy Coney Barret boys and girls) gets nominated to be a Supreme Court justice. That's when it actually becomes the problem.
Perhaps you were, but were you this upset over Trump's 'I need to nominate a good Christian female what's that about no confirmations during an election year' nomination of Barret?
-
what's that about no confirmations during an election year
Let's not forget who made it so that we no longer have to worry about confirmations during an election year. Boy, did that backfire.
-
My next nominee must be from Iceland. No other person will do for me. It's Icelandic or else!
That's so racist.
-
You tell us. You're the one protesting at the moment. Do you think, following the long, long history of white men being appointed to the SC, it's too soon for a coloured female appointee?
Again, that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. You're missing the point.
If a person campaigns on nominating only a white man to the Supreme Court, would you have a problem with that?
How extreme can it go before we must say "no, no, that's enough, don't do that"? How much racism and sexism is currently the acceptable amount? How much further should it go?
When someone with questionable experience and qualifications (can we say Amy Coney Barret boys and girls) gets nominated to be a Supreme Court justice. That's when it actually becomes the problem.
Perhaps you were, but were you this upset over Trump's 'I need to nominate a good Christian female what's that about no confirmations during an election year' nomination of Barret?
I don't recall Trump specifically promising to nominate only a particular race, gender or religion. Can you source when he said it? I know I sourced when Biden did.
-
To answer Rushy's question:
It will end when every combination of human is on the supreme court.
Trans is next. Maybe add Athiest after. Followed by genertically enhanced/mechanically enhanced.
After that, welll... Non-human maybe?
-
You tell us. You're the one protesting at the moment. Do you think, following the long, long history of white men being appointed to the SC, it's too soon for a coloured female appointee?
Again, that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. You're missing the point.
If a person campaigns on nominating only a white man to the Supreme Court, would you have a problem with that?
How extreme can it go before we must say "no, no, that's enough, don't do that"? How much racism and sexism is currently the acceptable amount? How much further should it go?
When someone with questionable experience and qualifications (can we say Amy Coney Barret boys and girls) gets nominated to be a Supreme Court justice. That's when it actually becomes the problem.
Perhaps you were, but were you this upset over Trump's 'I need to nominate a good Christian female what's that about no confirmations during an election year' nomination of Barret?
I don't recall Trump specifically promising to nominate only a particular race, gender or religion. Can you source when he said it? I know I sourced when Biden did.
There was no campaign promise, but the focus of his second nomination was strictly to nominate a female.
-
I don't recall Trump specifically promising to nominate only a particular race, gender or religion. Can you source when he said it? I know I sourced when Biden did.
I didn't recall it either.
“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman,” Trump said. “I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men.”
He added that he did not yet know whom he would choose.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/20/trump-vows-to-nominate-a-woman-for-us-supreme-court-vacancy-within-a-week
More history, doesn’t make it right, just the way it is:
"I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman," Trump said Sept. 19, 2020, during a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. He later added: "It will be a woman, a very talented, very brilliant woman. I haven’t chosen yet, but we have numerous women on the list."
_____________
Decades earlier, President Ronald Reagan said that if he were elected, he would nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court. "It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists," he said at a news conference weeks before the 1980 election, according to the Washington Post.
A year later, Reagan followed through, nominating Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
_____________
In 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower told his attorney general, "I still want the name of some fine, prominent Catholic to nominate to the bench," according to books by historian David A. Nichols, a former professor at Southwestern College, and Sheldon Goldman, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
_____________
Contemporary reporting also indicated that President George H. W. Bush concentrated the search that ended with Thomas’ swearing-in in 1991 mostly on minority and female candidates, though Bush denied that he was trying to satisfy a "quota" by replacing one Black justice with another. Thomas replaced Marshall, a former civil rights attorney and the court’s first Black justice, who retired due to health issues.
-
Yeah, trump didn't identify any gender or religon in his campaign trail far as I can tell. Only that he wanted to replace Ruth with another woman.
-
To answer Rushy's question:
It will end when every combination of human is on the supreme court.
That's gonna be one big SC lmao
-
To answer Rushy's question:
It will end when every combination of human is on the supreme court.
That's gonna be one big SC lmao
Well, there isn't a limit to how many justices SCOTUS has...
-
If a person campaigns on nominating only a white man to the Supreme Court, would you have a problem with that?
Yes, because promising to exclude minority groups is very different to promising to include minority groups. Majority groups and minority groups are not equivalent, and substituting one in place of the other just isn't an effective comparison.
Well, there isn't a limit to how many justices SCOTUS has...
Democrats should expand the court to punish Republicans for their sleazy partisanship over Barrett, just saying.
-
Democrats should expand the court to punish Republicans for their sleazy partisanship over Barrett, just saying.
Yes, that would go about as well as the last time they successfully compromised SCOTUS. It would be fun to watch, if nothing else!
-
I only support white men on the Supreme Court, as I, like you, judge nominees based on physical characteristics. If it's not a white man, I don't support their nomination. In the future I'll only vote for candidates that say "I will nominate a white man to the Supreme Court!" because apparently it's okay to promise that and then do it.
Pretty cringe thinking the black experience in the US is the same as the white one.
Also, I did discuss Kavanaugh extensively here, but you apparently weren't here to read that. Where were you when that happened? I guess you didn't care because you don't even remember it!
Citation needed. What about Barrett?
And on towards an even more racist future. You're not observing racism going away or being moved past. You're watching it being continued.
The right can't help but panic about everything.
As long as you admit she didn't earn the position on merit (and no one should or does, apparently), whatever else you say is needless fluff.
Perhaps she earned the nomination through a combination of resume and politics (find me a justice who hasn't), but she earned the position through a vote in the Senate. The GOP apparently believed she was more deserving than Barrett or Kavanagh too.
-
“I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman,” Trump said. “I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men.”
He added that he did not yet know whom he would choose.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/20/trump-vows-to-nominate-a-woman-for-us-supreme-court-vacancy-within-a-week
More history, doesn’t make it right, just the way it is:
"I will be putting forth a nominee next week. It will be a woman," Trump said Sept. 19, 2020, during a rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina. He later added: "It will be a woman, a very talented, very brilliant woman. I haven’t chosen yet, but we have numerous women on the list."
_____________
Decades earlier, President Ronald Reagan said that if he were elected, he would nominate the first woman to the Supreme Court. "It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists," he said at a news conference weeks before the 1980 election, according to the Washington Post.
A year later, Reagan followed through, nominating Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.
_____________
In 1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower told his attorney general, "I still want the name of some fine, prominent Catholic to nominate to the bench," according to books by historian David A. Nichols, a former professor at Southwestern College, and Sheldon Goldman, a professor of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
_____________
Contemporary reporting also indicated that President George H. W. Bush concentrated the search that ended with Thomas’ swearing-in in 1991 mostly on minority and female candidates, though Bush denied that he was trying to satisfy a "quota" by replacing one Black justice with another. Thomas replaced Marshall, a former civil rights attorney and the court’s first Black justice, who retired due to health issues.
Ah, so the US does have long history of racism and seeks to continue it. I suppose this is just another bad decision I should get used to seeing more of.
Pretty cringe thinking the black experience in the US is the same as the white one.
Pretty cringe to think one black person's experience is the same as another merely because they share a skin tone. That's the sort of racist rhetoric I've come to expect from you, though.
Citation needed. What about Barrett?
You brought up an irrelevant topic. If you want to dig for my opinions on them, there's a search bar at the top of the page. You can't bring something up then demand I source it for you. Well, you can, but you shouldn't.
The right can't help but panic about everything.
It's not a surprise that a racist like yourself devolves to generalizing an entire spectrum of political beliefs as well.
Perhaps she earned the nomination through a combination of resume and politics (find me a justice who hasn't), but she earned the position through a vote in the Senate. The GOP apparently believed she was more deserving than Barrett or Kavanagh too.
Biden specifying it must be a black woman means her other qualities are merely coincidence. As Saddam explained earlier, the court isn't one of merit, so I suppose her qualifications shouldn't matter to anyone anyway.
-
Pretty cringe to think one black person's experience is the same as another merely because they share a skin tone. That's the sort of racist rhetoric I've come to expect from you, though.
Strawman. Interesting tactic.
You brought up an irrelevant topic. If you want to dig for my opinions on them, there's a search bar at the top of the page. You can't bring something up then demand I source it for you. Well, you can, but you shouldn't.
I did. You complained about Dems, never about how those nominees were solely to prop up GOP wedge issues. I see you are a dishonest actor posing as someone with ethics.
It's not a surprise that a racist like yourself devolves to generalizing an entire spectrum of political beliefs as well.
Alright. You and every other right winger here panic at everything. Happy
Biden specifying it must be a black woman means her other qualities are merely coincidence.
What a terrible analysis. No wonder your take on this is so vapid.
As Saddam explained earlier, the court isn't one of merit, so I suppose her qualifications shouldn't matter to anyone anyway.
Saddam’s generalization is not accurate, but go ahead and continue agreeing with your critics then tell them they are wrong.
-
Democrats should expand the court to punish Republicans for their sleazy partisanship over Barrett, just saying.
Yes, that would go about as well as the last time they successfully compromised SCOTUS. It would be fun to watch, if nothing else!
Okay, so presumably you're referring to the thing about the nuclear option that was discussed in the Trump thread after Ginsburg died. First, Democrats did not use the nuclear option to remove the 60-vote requirement for Supreme Court nominees, Republicans did (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear-option-why-trumps-supreme-court-pick-needs-only-51-votes-in-the-senate/). Democrats had previously used the nuclear option to remove the 60-vote requirement for confirming Cabinet posts and federal judges. But to put it as simply as possible, that doesn't matter. Democrats removing the 60-vote requirement for confirming Cabinet posts was in no way a requirement or a necessary first step for removing the 60-vote requirement for SC justices. As the article I linked discusses, Republicans were ready to use the nuclear option over the SC back in the Bush years, long before the Democrats ever did anything comparable, and it's ludicrous to think that they, having grown far more determined and unscrupulous in recent years, would have hesitated to be the first to use the nuclear option nowadays. And more importantly, nobody was criticizing Barrett's nomination for not requiring 60 votes to be confirmed. They were criticizing it for being shoved through in the last few weeks of a Republican presidency when Republicans had just a few years previously refused to allow a Democratic president to nominate someone in the last several months of their presidency. This only happened a couple of years ago, and it's easy to check what people were actually saying. This tit-for-tat, Democrats-should-blame-themselves narrative simply is not an accurate reflection of what really happened.
Biden specifying it must be a black woman means her other qualities are merely coincidence.
What a strange thing to say. That doesn't logically follow at all.
As Saddam explained earlier, the court isn't one of merit, so I suppose her qualifications shouldn't matter to anyone anyway.
I said it's not purely based on merit, which is absolutely true. If ideology and youth can and should be taken into account, then why not race and gender?
-
This tit-for-tat, Democrats-should-blame-themselves narrative simply is not an accurate reflection of what really happened.
Whatever helps you sleep at night. The outcome, and its consequences to SCOTUS, remain the same :)
-
The outcome does remain the same, yes. Republicans will fight dirty and act in bad faith regardless of what Democrats do or don't do, and the sooner Democrats realize that, the better off they'll be. The same thing applies to the media and their desperate efforts to both-sides what's going on. I'm not happy about the state of politics in this country, but it's the reality.
-
The outcome does remain the same, yes. Republicans will fight dirty and act in bad faith regardless of what Democrats do or don't do, and the sooner Democrats realize that, the better off they'll be.
Man, blaming the other side for your side's failings sure is gonna help. I can 100% see this going your way.
-
You flatter me, but my views unfortunately seem to have no bearing on how the Democrats run themselves or their approach to future elections. I question how much they could even be considered "my side" at this point. They're preferable to Republicans, but at a certain point their favored brand of quiet don't-rock-the-boat centrism becomes indistinguishable from conservatism. junker tried to warn me.
-
You flatter me, but my views unfortunately seem to have no bearing on how the Democrats run themselves or their approach to future elections.
Of course not. You're just an example of the mentality, insignificant as you may be. It's entertaining nonetheless!
-
Right. Anyway, white men should be barred from the SC forever, discuss.
-
Republicans will fight dirty and act in bad faith regardless of what Democrats do or don't do, and the sooner Democrats realize that, the better off they'll be.
Hot take time. Democrats already know that and have known it for many years, and they are not better off.
-
I have an additional hot take. They're aware of it but they don't care. Trying to lead the country sucks. It's way easier to be the minority party and bittch and mon about the other party.
It's like the baseball episode of South Park. Where they both hate the game but they can't tell their parents. So they get amazing at being bad at it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Losing_Edge
A great episode. Definitely worth wtching.