Majority of Americans want Biden to consider 'all possible nominees' for Supreme Court vacancy: POLL

[Slartibartfast]

Wherever these stupid graphics come from that the left use to express their pre-approved views.

They come from individuals who have a sense of humor and know how to make a point

 

[Geoist]

What's sad is, that judicial qualifications and competency not only take a back seat to those, but seemingly aren't a consideration at all.

Obviously qualification and competency are important. In fact, that's a given.

 

[Schism]

I understand people like you think all discrimination is equally bad but I see a clear distinction between the following scenarios:

1. A president looks to replace a SCOTUS justice. He refuses to look at any candidates that are Jewish because he thinks all Jews are corrupt.

2. A president looks to replace a SCOTUS justice. He knows that a black woman has never held the position, so he decides to consider the best black woman candidates.

Do you see the difference?

It's a distinction without a difference. It's how one justifies discrimination.

 

[Schism]

They come from individuals who have a sense of humor and know how to make a point

Unlike you, in both cases.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Unlike you, in both cases.

I don’t have the best photoshop skills but my verbal quips tend to be pretty decent judging how people react.

 

[LouC]

Thanks for voicing your support for discrimination. You guys are close to forming a party-majority opinion on the subject.

Well hell yeah I want Senile Old Sleepy President Joe Biden to discriminate on who he selects.

Just like I want every American to discriminate!

For instance, I want Americans to discriminate between doing right and wrong, hoping folks will choose to do right!

I want Senile Old Sleepy President Joe Biden to discriminate between all the folks he will consider for the SC Nominee settling on the candidate he thinks is the best suited via experience and most likely to be confirmed by the Senate.

 

[Schism]

Obviously qualification and competency are important. In fact, that's a given.

That's just the first set of qualifications, the second set of qualifiers is when it becomes discriminatory.

 

[LouC]

I understand people like you think all discrimination is equally bad but I see a clear distinction between the following scenarios:

1. A president looks to replace a SCOTUS justice. He refuses to look at any candidates that are Jewish because he thinks all Jews are corrupt.

2. A president looks to replace a SCOTUS justice. He knows that a black woman has never held the position, so he decides to consider the best black woman candidates.

Do you see the difference?

Good luck with that!

 

[Grim17]

Obviously qualification and competency are important. In fact, that's a given.

Even so, those factors take a back seat to identity and ideology... That to me is inexcusable.

 

[Slartibartfast]

That's just the first set of qualifications, the second set of qualifiers is when it becomes discriminatory.

Not really. It’s good for the nation to increase diversity.

 

[Geoist]

It's a distinction without a difference. It's how one justifies discrimination.

I just don't see the big deal with the latter scenario. As I said, I want the most progressive qualified candidate. I don't care if Biden is looking at only a list of black women to find her. But if he selects a swing-voting centrist then I'll be annoyed.

 

[Schism]

Not really. It’s good for the nation to increase diversity.

Diversity is terrific until it becomes discrimination.

 

[Geoist]

Even so, those factors take a back seat to identity and ideology... That to me is inexcusable.

So if you were president and looked at a list of potential SCOTUS candidates you'd pick the progressive if he/she was the 'most qualified?'

 

[Slartibartfast]

Diversity is terrific until it becomes discrimination.

Discrimination is the polar opposite of diversity, so you’re safe there

 

[Schism]

So if you were president and looked at a list of potential SCOTUS candidates you'd pick the progressive if he/she was the 'most qualified?'

I would not limit the pool of candidates to one gender and skin color.

This isn't complicated, but I see how you're trying to make it complicated to justify discrimination.

 

[roguenuke]

Give me the exact qualifications that a person needs to be on the SCOTUS. Now, how many people in the US meet those qualifications? What are some legitimate ways to reduce that list down to make sure the process for such a pick does not take years?

 

[Schism]

Discrimination is the polar opposite of diversity, so you’re safe there

No, it's not. You're showing you have a skewed view of both terms.

You're suggesting favoritism is an element of diversity, not discrimination. You're actually upside down.

 

[Geoist]

I would not limit the pool of candidates to one gender and skin color.

This isn't complicated, but I see how you're trying to make it complicated to justify discrimination.

I wouldn't limit it either. But I'm not going to make a big deal about it (especially when previous GOP presidents did the exact same virtue signal) or even pretend it's exactly like not picking someone because of some negative beliefs about the candidate's ethnicity.

 

[LouC]

That's just the first set of qualifications, the second set of qualifiers is when it becomes discriminatory.

You lost the argument in the OP.

Just give it up.

You lose ground every time you post.

To arrive at your "first set of qualifications" one must discriminate.

Besides there are no Constitutional requirements for SC Nominees to even have a judicial background.

 

[Slartibartfast]

No, it's not. You're showing you have a skewed view of both terms.

You're suggesting favoritism is an element of diversity, not discrimination. You're actually upside down.

My views are correct, they are just not subject to conservatives trying to dilute the terminology over time.

Correcting past issues is fine.

 

[AGENT J]

If the POTUS doesn't follow EEOC hiring guidelines, why should corporate America? How could a supreme court justice rule on an EEOC Discrimination suit if that justice was hired from a pool of other black females with no other choices considered outside of that demographic?

It just seems odd to me that democrats, liberals or moderates could support this. I would expect progressives and alt-left nutters to support.

YES!!! another unhinged triggered dishonest thread on this topic!!!!!
man this really has the usual suspect posting delusional meltdowns all over the place, I love it! LMAO

"Potus" isn't "hiring" anybody and theres no factual EEOC guidelines that are not being followed on this topic of the president nominating a candidate that he feels is qualified and the senate confirming or not


/topically uneducated, tinfoil hat false narrative, dishonest retarded claims in OP destroyed


also might as well bring over the other false claims from the two other hilarious thread since none of the nutters can ever answer them

What factual laws have been broken by the president on this issue?
what factual rights have been denied by the president on this issue?
what factually illegal acts have been done by the president of this issue?
what has the president done to make him factually racist and sexist on this issue?
what factually illegal discrimination has the president committed on this issue??
who has the president hired in this case that is factually not qualified, competent, and experienced???

Let us know!

 

[Schism]

I wouldn't limit it either.

Why not? Why are we in agreement on this?

 

[TurtleDude]

Right, Trump did the same thing with the three assholes he put on the court.

why are they assholes? because they don't hate capitalism, the constitution, gun rights, and America?

 

[TurtleDude]

YES!!! another unhinged triggered dishonest thread on this topic!!!!!
man this really has the usual suspect posting delusional meltdowns all over the place, I love it! LMAO

"Potus" isn't "hiring" anybody and theres no factual EEOC guidelines that are not being followed on this topic of the president nominating a candidate that he feels is qualified and the senate confirming or not


/topically uneducated, tinfoil hat false narrative, dishonest retarded claims in OP destroyed


also might as well bring over the other false claims from the two other hilarious thread since none of the nutters can ever answer them

What factual laws have been broken by the president on this issue?
what factual rights have been denied by the president on this issue?
what factually illegal acts have been done by the president of this issue?
what has the president done to make him factually racist and sexist on this issue?
what factually illegal discrimination has the president committed on this issue??
who has the president hired in this case that is factually not qualified, competent, and experienced???

Let us know!

why do you constantly post dishonest nonsense about others' posts being "unhinged"? His point was calmly laid out and shows no hysterics.

 

[prometeus]

why are they assholes? because they don't hate capitalism, the constitution, gun rights, and America?

Why the retarded question? Who the **** mentioned any of the crap you listed?