• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No need to argue if any black woman is qualified for the supreme court. Is it just plain old time one was finally added to the court?

Napoleon said:
How many Supreme Court nominees who had no legal education have been confirmed by the Senate and who were they?
Click to expand...
What relevance does that have to whether or not a law degree is an objective requirement for serving on the Supreme Court?
 
XDU said:
The Supreme Court of all institutions should never be treated so "basically."
Click to expand...
It's nothing more than a political body ruling on whether something passes constitutional muster or not...according to their own political beliefs.
 
noonereal said:
Now that is strange, I was told she was black. I guess the definition of black changes given the circumstance. How convenient.

Came from Peru did they? LOL

So if one's ancestry spoke Spanish they are not black?

In January 2021, Sonia Sotomayor swore in Kamala Harris as the Vice President of the United States. It was considered historic as Sotomayor is the first Woman of Color to serve on the Supreme Court...
en.wikipedia.org

Sonia Sotomayor - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

But none of this really matters as long as she is not a well qualified white male.
Click to expand...
A 'woman of color' does not mean black. It just means 'non-white'.

That fact you didn't know that speaks volumes
 
neil said:
No, that is my response to your question. You're asking who & I'm proposing @Napoleon . I hope this helps clarify things for you.
Click to expand...
It would be clearer if you spoke in complete sentences but if you're suggesting @Napoleon is someone who's never had their mind changed I'd believe it. I've been trying to educate him on the difference between objective and subjective and he shows no ability to grasp those simple concepts.
 
Master Debator said:
What relevance does that have to whether or not a law degree is an objective requirement for serving on the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...
The fact that the Senate has never considered or confirmed a nominee who didn’t have any legal education strongly indicates that it is an objective criteria. The Constitution doesn’t specify any qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice so you’re going to have to do a better job of explaining what the objective criteria of picking one person out of hundreds of millions are. Unless your position is that there are no objective criteria and the process is entirely subjective. In which case, the racial makeup of the Court is factually and objectively irrelevant to their qualification.
 
noonereal said:
And how many were qualified or even seeking work? You left that out . 🤡
Click to expand...
Worn out racist right wing clown narrative.

“Blacks are underemployed because they lack skills and would rather live on welfare”.
 
Napoleon said:
She’s the only name so far that the White House has confirmed to be under consideration. And since they floated it to the Senate it seems she’s at least on the short list.
Click to expand...
I think that lady, whose father was Jewish and mom was a Jamaican immigrant and who was the Editor in Chief of the Yale Law Journal, as well as clerking for the supremes (California Supreme Court now) has the best credentials of anyone mentioned. While, IIRC Yale Law doesnt rank students for many years, Editor in Chief of the YLJ is major league proof of her abilities. Same with being picked to clerk for a US SC Justice
 
Master Debator said:
What relevance does that have to whether or not a law degree is an objective requirement for serving on the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...
Let us stick to reality. Even Biden won't consider someone who doesn't have a law degree.
 
Master Debator said:
It would be clearer if you spoke in complete sentences but if you're suggesting @Napoleon is someone who's never had their mind changed I'd believe it. I've been trying to educate him on the difference between objective and subjective and he shows no ability to grasp those simple concepts.
Click to expand...
Well I'm not the one suggesting that @Napoleon has never had his mind changed; I'm simply asking you because you're the one bringing up the idea about anyone ever caring to change @Napoleon's opinion.
 
Napoleon said:
The fact that the Senate has never considered or confirmed a nominee who didn’t have any legal education strongly indicates that it is an objective criteria.
Click to expand...
One, that isn't even a fact. A few of the early Justices were confirmed before formal legal education existed in this country. They practiced law but were self taught or learned through apprenticeship. It's only technically wrong but still facts are facts.

Two, objective facts are proven, not strongly indicated which itself is subjective. The fact that all Justices have been attorneys indicates to me, that the Senate has largely believed, subjectively, that experience with the law is important for Justice to have.

If we want to know objectively what criteria one needs to be a Justice we need only to look at the requirements laid down by the Constitution for it sets the legal requirements and objectively, it makes no requirement of formal legal education. If you believe otherwise, prove it.
Napoleon said:
The Constitution doesn’t specify any qualifications for a Supreme Court Justice so you’re going to have to do a better job of explaining what the objective criteria of picking one person out of hundreds of millions are.
Click to expand...
No I don't. The Constitution has given you your answer.
Napoleon said:
Unless your position is that there are no objective criteria and the process is entirely subjective.
Click to expand...
There are objective criteria. You have to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Napoleon said:
In which case, the racial makeup of the Court is factually irrelevant to their qualification.
Click to expand...
Race and sex are irrelevant criteria according to law but law is implemented by people, in this case the President and the Senate. If those two bodies believe subjectively, that diversity on the court matters then race and sex become objectively important to achieving that goal.


What you seem to be failing to understand is that context matters. Something can be both subjective and objective depending on the context. For instance my love of oxtail is subjective but objectively I do love it. Make sense? Probably not. But it is amusing watching you try and try and try.... 😂
 
Master Debator said:
One, that isn't even a fact. A few of the early Justices were confirmed before formal legal education existed in this country. They practiced law but were self taught or learned through apprenticeship. It's only technically wrong but still facts are facts.

Two, objective facts are proven, not strongly indicated which itself is subjective. The fact that all Justices have been attorneys indicates to me, that the Senate has largely believed, subjectively, that experience with the law is important for Justice to have.

If we want to know objectively what criteria one needs to be a Justice we need only to look at the requirements laid down by the Constitution for it sets the legal requirements and objectively, it makes no requirement of formal legal education. If you believe otherwise, prove it.

No I don't. The Constitution has given you your answer.

There are objective criteria. You have to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Race and sex are irrelevant criteria according to law but law is implemented by people, in this case the President and the Senate. If those two bodies believe subjectively, that diversity on the court matters then race and sex become objectively important to achieving that goal.


What you seem to be failing to understand is that context matters. Something can be both subjective and objective depending on the context. For instance my love of oxtail is subjective but objectively I do love it. Make sense? Probably not. But it amusing watching you try and try and try.... 😂
Click to expand...
It seems you’ve finally been caught up in your own web and are beginning to comprehend the question you were asked. If something subjective can be made objective by those making the decision then answer the question. What are the objective criteria to justify supporting a Michelle Childs nomination?
 
Napoleon said:
It seems you’ve finally been caught up in your own web. If something subjective can be made objective by those making the decision then answer the question. What are the objective criteria to justify supporting a Michelle Childs nomination?
Click to expand...
No, I said things can be both objective and subjective depending on the context through which you are looking at them, not changed from subjective to objective. Facts will always be facts and opinions will always be opinions.


According to the criteria laid down by the Constitution, Michelle Childs is objectively qualified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom