[Tumeni]

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.

[Rushy]

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.

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).

[honk]

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?

[Tumeni]

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.

[Tumeni]

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.

[Rama Set]

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.

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.

[Tumeni]

Jackson received more votes (53 - 47) than Trump nominees Barrett (52 - 48) and Kavanaugh ((50 - 48), too ...

[Rushy]

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.

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?

[Tumeni]

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?   

[Lord Dave]

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.

[Rushy]

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!

[Tumeni]

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? 

[WTF_Seriously]

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?

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[Pongo]

My next nominee must be from Iceland. No other person will do for me. It's Icelandic or else!

That's so racist.

[Rushy]

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.

[Lord Dave]

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?

[WTF_Seriously]

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.

[stack]

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.

[Lord Dave]

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.