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?

[TurtleDude]

And he was law review. They said Obama was stupid and hadn't earned any of it. I'm seeing a pattern here.

I never said he was stupid. he was a good politician. The way he became president of the law review was he catered to the right wing students on the review. He told them that he wouldn't discriminate against their notes-something the other leftwing candidate wouldn't promise. Former US SG Paul Clement mentioned this when he came to Cincinnati years ago to speak at a Federalist society meeting. Clement, IIRC was the #1 student in the class behind Obama and of course was on the law review

 

[TurtleDude]

I told you people that Biden considered the entire population of qualified candidates (just like the previous administration did) and the people who made the short list happen to be black women. Just like the short list from the prior administration happened to be white.

there is no factual basis for your claim-Biden stated he was going to appoint a black female long before he had a chance to

 

[TurtleDude]

Okay . so youre take is ....

It has no basis in fact-everyone knows he limited his choice to a black female. And we believed him because he did the same thing he promised to do with his VP

 

[jotathought]

It has no basis in fact-everyone knows he limited his choice to a black female. And we believed him because he did the same thing he promised to do with his VP

Agree... we support that we selected a black Vice President because of her color ... and not because of her experience.

 

[VySky]

There is no such thing as "most qualified". What you want him to have done was spare your hurt feelings.

But why didn’t he just make the pick? It would serve the new justice better too. This is another self inflicted wound for team Biden

 

[maxparrish]

A white male does not have the same perspective as a black female. That isn't an insult to his intelligence but a recognition of social and cultural facts.

Conversely, a black female is incapable of having the same legal perspective as a white male, her cognitive limitations not being an insult to her intelligence...right?

Sounds kinda racist to me, how bout you?

Acknowledging and valuing the different perspectives brought from diverse ethnicities and sexes isn't in and of itself racist. As another poster commented earlier, you all seem to be confusing racial with racism.

Well yes, acknowledging and valuing different perspectives from any source isn't in itself racist, sexist, classist, or even worthwhile. However, valuing perspectives precisely BECAUSE their origin in race, ethnicity and sex makes consideration and selection always based that attribute itself an "ism", a belief that work ought to be valued by the skin color or sex, etc.

Suppose, for example, I want to open a museum of art and decide to make a show of Male German and Female non-German Jewish Art. It doesn't matter if I select 80 percent Male German or 80 percent Female Jewish, or 50 percent each art. I am making choices based on "race" and "sex" because an artist's "race" and "sex" is a value in and of itself. It's not race blind, its very much selecting artists and their art based on their race.

An artwork or artist being German isn't a value to me. Being Jewish isn't a value to me. I find such reasoning, no matter how it is packaged as an "ism", to violate a fundamental principle of decency... the wrongness of treating individual's personhood and the merit of their works rooted in their race or sex.

And the only "perspectives" I value are those that merit acknowledgement and value, those that share my philosophy of life and the law... be it from Janice Rodgers Brown, Clarence Thomas, or any of the jurists I listed previously.

You'd have us imagine you are the social equivalent of a Ken doll? Just completely smooth down there with no hint of socially ingrained bias...

No socially ingrained bias because all my ingrained bias has been self taught, based on principle and empirical confirmation.

How about you? Are you a product of race and gender social bias?

 

[VySky]

The pure and simple fact that Republicans are up in arms about Biden only wanting to nominate a black woman just proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Republicans don't a black woman would be qualified for the job.
There are almost certainly 100s of people who could reasonably be considered qualified for this job that would be approximately equal in terms of their ability. There is most certainly a black woman among them who would be just as good as anybody else.

Joe did it all wrong. Blacks would have been bettered served if he put his choice on the same playing field as everyone else. Pick her because you want to that’s fine. You don’t have to make a Floyd golden horse drawn carriage orgy about it.

 

[maxparrish]

I told you people that Biden considered the entire population of qualified candidates (just like the previous administration did) and the people who made the short list happen to be black women. Just like the short list from the prior administration happened to be white.

Ummm...no, that is not how it happened.

The story in Slate, a left of center source, dovetails with the story reported elsewhere. In the primary, during a Democratic debate in South Carolina, South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn, the highest-ranking Black member of Congress had urged him to promise a black woman on the court. Accordingly, Biden announced in the debate: “I’m looking forward to making sure there’s a Black woman on the Supreme Court,” the price of Clyburn's endorsement. And as we know after that endorsement Biden swept the state because of the black vote.

As the article also points out, Americans in general are turned off by Joe Biden’s Supreme Court nomination strategy. Three quarters say Biden should consider all possible nominees, rather than only those who are female and black. Even 54 percent of Democrats think so.

"the way Biden has talked about the value of diversity in political institutions is remarkably crass. It’s no wonder that the vast majority of Americans, including a majority of his own party, are chafing at it.

The White House’s current conundrum began during Biden’s 2020 campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, when he made two promises: If nominated, he would tap a woman as his running mate; and if elected, he’d pick a Black woman for the Supreme Court. These pledges were meant to alleviate the perceived reluctance of Democratic voters—a minority of whom are white men—to choose a white man as their nominee.

,,,As a campaign tactic, it was not only selfish, but short-sighted. It gave Biden what may have felt like a boost in the moment, while creating a wide opening for criticism and doubts about the women who’d contribute to his presidential legacy."

MSN

 

[maxparrish]

Wow, I didn't know the field is this weak...the "best" black females in law:



The only one that might be worth a crap is Leondra Kruger. Jackson, Akiwumi, and Thomas have a paltry 6 months (on average) experience in the Court of Appeals. Most are shills for the NAACP, welfare departments, etc. Prior experience as a jurist are all very weak (LA Superior Court is pretty lame).

The only one with extensive high level experience is Kruger.

No wonder there is so much pushback, I had no idea that most of these are just affirmative action picks. NONE come close to males of any color.

Sad...very sad.

 

[maxparrish]

Ya there are sooooo many other better qualified liberals/progressives than the few black women. Here is an example of one guy I'd choose in a heartbeat if I was a liberal:

Akhil Reed Amar (born September 6, 1958) is an American legal scholar known for his expertise in constitutional law and criminal procedure. He holds the position of Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University.[1] A Legal Affairs poll placed Amar among the top 20 contemporary US legal thinkers.[2] (Wikipedia).

Books[edit]​

• The Constitution and Criminal Procedure: First Principles (1997) ISBN 0-300-06678-3
• For the People (with A. Hirsch) (1997) ISBN 0-684-87102-5
• The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction (1998) ISBN 0-300-07379-8
• Processes of Constitutional Decisionmaking (ed. with P. Brest, S. Levinson, and J.M. Balkin), (2000) ISBN 0-7355-5062-X
• America's Constitution: A Biography (2005) ISBN 1-4000-6262-4
• America's Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By (2012) ISBN 978-0-465-02957-0
• The Bill of Rights Primer: A Citizen's Guidebook to the American Bill of Rights (with L. Adams) (2013) ISBN 978-1-62087-572-8
• The Law of the Land: A Grand Tour of Our Constitutional Republic (2015) ISBN 978-0-465-06590-5
• The Constitution Today: Timeless Lessons for the Issues of Our Era (2016) ISBN 978-0-465-09633-6
• The Words that Made Us: America's Constitutional Conversation, 1760-1840 (2021) ISBN 978-0-465-09635-0

Yes Amar is a liberal BUT he writes very coherent, dispassionate and often persuasive opinion.

You know, the two best college teachers I had was a Jewish liberal and a South Korean moderate. I loved their intellectualism and enjoyment of challenging discussion...as well as intelligence. (Although a Chezh guy was also very good).

The two worst teachers I had were younger American white guys, "hip", anglo liberals. Fragile, needing to be liked, ego sensitive ninny's. They just didn't have the love of the intellectual life like my best teachers.

Amar reads like one who does.

 

[Master Debator]

But why didn’t he just make the pick? It would serve the new justice better too. This is another self inflicted wound for team Biden

The Justice, whoever the end up being, I promise won't be hampered by your hurt feelings.

 

[Master Debator]

Conversely, a black female is incapable of having the same legal perspective as a white male, her cognitive limitations not being an insult to her intelligence...right?

Wrong. People of different races and sex can share legal opinions and cognitive limitations is a direct question on her intelligence. That's all different from recognizing that a white man would not have had the same social and cultural perspectives as a black woman. That you think all these are the same is a matter of your own cognitive limitation.

Sounds kinda racist to me, how bout you?

That's because your example was racist. What you weren't able to was show how my example was.

Well yes, acknowledging and valuing different perspectives from any source isn't in itself racist, sexist, classist, or even worthwhile.

No shit.

However, valuing perspectives precisely BECAUSE their origin in race, ethnicity and sex makes consideration and selection always based that attribute itself an "ism", a belief that work ought to be valued by the skin color or sex, etc.

I don't know what you're trying to say here.

Suppose, for example, I want to open a museum of art and decide to make a show of Male German and Female non-German Jewish Art. It doesn't matter if I select 80 percent Male German or 80 percent Female Jewish, or 50 percent each art. I am making choices based on "race" and "sex" because an artist's "race" and "sex" is a value in and of itself. It's not race blind, its very much selecting artists and their art based on their race.

And......?

An artwork or artist being German isn't a value to me. Being Jewish isn't a value to me. I find such reasoning, no matter how it is packaged as an "ism", to violate a fundamental principle of decency... the wrongness of treating individual's personhood and the merit of their works rooted in their race or sex.

That's all very subjective. You don't value Germans or Jews. You think its wrong to consider sex or race but none of those are objective notions, they're are all your personal feelings.

And the only "perspectives" I value are those that merit acknowledgement and value, those that share my philosophy of life and the law... be it from Janice Rodgers Brown, Clarence Thomas, or any of the jurists I listed previously.

Good for you, but you aren't the President's values and your perspective while interesting to you is not Bidens perspective nor the perspective of millions of black voters that helped put him into office.

No socially ingrained bias because all my ingrained bias has been self taught, based on principle and empirical confirmation.

So you're confirming that you're the social equivalent of a Ken doll.....?

How about you? Are you a product of race and gender social bias?

Of course I am. Everyone is to a degree. We are all, to some extent, the product of our environment and those biases exist in ours. Pretending otherwise makes you sus.

 

[Master Debator]

why don't we trust all of the Supreme Court Justices over people such as you, given your posts don't seem to demonstrate much understanding of the intellectual requirements of being a supreme court justice? Liberal or conservative, originalist or "living document" advocate, the Justices tend to be rather monolithic in who they hire. BTW Kavanaugh has a reputation for not only hiring lady law clerks but helping them get other big time positions after they leave his employ. When he was a circuit judge, he really went out of his way getting his clerks appointed to supreme court clerkships

You can keep repeating yourself but all you're doing is describing the subjective perspectives from which these Justice choose their clerks. You aren't describing an "objective best".

 

[j brown's body]

Wow, I didn't know the field is this weak...the "best" black females in law:

View attachment 67372208

The only one that might be worth a crap is Leondra Kruger. Jackson, Akiwumi, and Thomas have a paltry 6 months (on average) experience in the Court of Appeals. Most are shills for the NAACP, welfare departments, etc. Prior experience as a jurist are all very weak (LA Superior Court is pretty lame).

The only one with extensive high level experience is Kruger.

No wonder there is so much pushback, I had no idea that most of these are just affirmative action picks. NONE come close to males of any color.

Sad...very sad.

Chief Justice Earl Warren had no judicial experience and went the UC Berkeley law school. Robert Jackson, who ran the Nuremberg trials had no judicial experience and didn't put graduate from any law school.

The qualifications argument is a myth and more a reflection of our deference to elitism than anything else.

 

[lurchadams]

Let me guess, you think yourself a real macho man, right?

Yeah, heart attacks only happen to "the other guy." Just like Covid.

Thanks for the clown response.

Well, I do think I'm "masculine", but I don't put on a leather outfit and sing Village People songs.

No, what I meant is that I'm in shape and health-conscious I work out every day, cardio and weight training every other day. My resting heart rate ranges from 46 to 52. I'm looking at my fitness watch now and it says, 54.

 

[RealityNow]

The entire basis of you racist-sexist claim is that by virtue of a person's color or sex they are incapable of reaching a conclusion you favor so, by golly, lets pack the court with those groups.

You are so unaware, you have a concept as if you think "white men" have always been "just" in their decisions on the SCOTUS. If they had been there never would have been Plessy or Dred Scott decisions. It would not have taken 100 yrs to break the back of racial segregation.

To accept your train of thought (such as it is) is itself racist and sexist, i.e., that by virtue of a skin color or sex a jurist will and should decide in favor of this/her socially assigned role. Any jurist who accepts that as an imperative isn't a judge, they are just shills for someone's socially assigned "membership" in a tribe.

Keep ignoring history... Geez!!! you want to pretend as if racism and sexism does not exist.

The Supreme Court isn't nine tribal identity delegates in a mini-UN hoping to out vote those "white males", as much as you want it to be.

History!!!!! speaks other than what you say. Now, in Today's SCOTUS, there are laws in place that does not allow the decisions made in past history. There are Constitutional Amendments that back up that fact.

So long before we were born, you're going to ignore anything decided after 1931 and desperately criticize today's court as if this were the 1896 or 1847. Helloooooo, this is the 21st century, not the 19th century. But hey if you want to bash the 19th century courts using the legal standards of the 21st century, go for it. But please, don't attempt to gas light us into believing this is a reflection of how anyone on the courts now think, regardless of race.

Stop the spin... I told you there was no issue with the cases you cited, besides you don't know what type of dissent would have been put forth on cases if there were diversity on the bench. So spin backwards if that's what appease you. You still don't get it, I said: and I will say again, IF the 19th Century had diversity on the SCOTUS decisions could have been different. You just want to play some aggrieved spin game, I can see into your agenda of "white is always right delusion".

Part 1 response

 

[RealityNow]

Part 2 response

You missed the point, again. I said IF you were in a homogeneous society, apparently you wouldn't have a concept of identity, of personhood.

Maybe you wouldn't have a concept of identity or personhood either. It was white people, who promoted the concept of "seeing white people, as Person" while identifying and categorizing black people as "black person" rather than just "Person". Mitch McConnell just got called out for his comment

How could anyone who thinks like you? Your conceptual framework needs an oppressor, an "other", to establish an identity of being of the oppressed, of membership in "us victims". How could you even have an identity based on race if you lived in a society where you, and everyone else, is of the same race?

How could anyone think like you? You try to ignore every element of racism which still exist, I don't accept nor do I feel oppressed, I've never considered any white person to be better than myself, you want to keep playing the victim because you think in your "other" terms. Your last question, is insidious! In any country with people who are the same race, have various cultural Identities, heck in America, people call themselves, Southerners, Westerners, Easterners and various other regionalized identities. I've lived in the West, the Midwest and South, and I don't classify myself as any of such.

My personhood has not been based on race, although the left is working very hard to drive whites to start thinking that way. Therefore, my sense of self hasn't had concepts of "white male supremacy" because I had the privilege of developing my personhood in youth without even thinking about race or sex differences...my entire self-concept was based on how I thought about my character, and the principles a human being should live by.

You are delusional, if you think your personhood has not been based on race. You should pay attention to what you say, "You acknowledge "privileges'" in developing your personhood. you ignore the fact of what "segregation was and what it promoted. It promoted you to see yourself Just as "person" but to see non white people as "Black Person", or Asian Person, or Mexican Person, but you did not see German People as German Person, or Swedish Person as Swedish person, you just saw them as Person".

And by the way, America wasn't never homogeneous to Americans by their standards, but by today's standards based mostly on race it was. By 1950, according to the census, the US was nearly 90 percent white and 10 percent black. Given today's people of color obsessions, that is pretty homogeneous.

You pose an argument, and then turn around and defy your initial assertions. White people have been the segment of society obsessed with skin color, or there never would have been segregation. You probably live in a "all white community", where as I live in a mixed diversity community and have done so for the majority of my life.

It's a shame you need to make war on the past in order to feel legitimized in the present.

Its a shame you try to deny the past to ignore its impact on the present.
___________________

I don't know you, you may well not have racial ideals, but to call me racist because I talk about what you try to deny.... is disingenuous.

 

[bongsaway]

Legalized weed must be cutting into your profits.

Legal weed is driving the price of black market weed down. Profits? I don't sell weed, I smoke it.

 

[bongsaway]

Do you feel that the pool of diversity hires is the right approach to take without considering the entire population of qualified candidates?

How do you know what the president considered and what he did not consider? I'm good with a black woman on the court.

 

[Ren]

Then you'll be happy with Biden's nomination.

He'll need to walk his dumbass comment back about nominating a black woman, then we'll talk.

We don't need race hustlers running this country. We need solid, capable leadership.

 

[RealityNow]

Only if he walks his dumbass comment back about nominating a black woman.

We don't need race hustlers running this country. We need solid, capable leadership.

American has had Race Hustlers Running the country since its inception... if it had not been so, we would have not had so many white male President, or white male SCOTUS. Just because white people did not say, I'm nominating a white man", verbally, their actions damn sure proved it, since the inception of America as we know it as a country.

Geez.... !!!!!

 

[Ren]

American has had Race Hustlers Running the country since its inception... if it had not been so, we would have not had so many white male President, or white male SCOTUS. Just because white people did not say, I'm nominating a white man", verbally, their actions damn sure proved it, since the inception of America as we know it as a country.

Geez.... !!!!!

Who settled this country, RN? Talk to me about the race hustlers of 250 years ago.

 

[Napoleon]

Chief Justice Earl Warren had no judicial experience and went the UC Berkeley law school. Robert Jackson, who ran the Nuremberg trials had no judicial experience and didn't put graduate from any law school.

The qualifications argument is a myth and more a reflection of our deference to elitism than anything else.

Earl Warren and Robert Jackson had extensive experience in practicing public law and in roles which provided insights into their legal philosophy. You knew where they stood on the issues of the day and how they interpreted the Constitution. Very important things to know when you’re considering giving them a job to do exactly that for life.

Several of the women on this list don’t have the requisite equivalent experience for anyone to know that. I mean, you look at somebody like Candace Jackson-Akiwumi who graduated from Princeton and Yale only to spend 10 years representing the hobos of Chicago as a public defender. That’s a goddamn greek tragedy. Now she’s on the bench, in a position where we can start to gain insights into her legal philosophy but she’s only been there for 6 months.

Qualifications aren’t a myth. Indeed, we can see in this very thread that members insist the people on the short-list are “qualified” but decline to say what that means.

 

[Master Debator]

Qualifications aren’t a myth. Indeed, we can see in this very thread that members insist the people on the short-list are “qualified” but decline to say what that means.

In this particular case those qualifications are your subjective opinions and not actual qualifications as prescribed by the Constitution.

 

[Napoleon]

In this particular case those qualifications are your subjective opinions and not actual qualifications as prescribed by the Constitution.

We’ve been through this. You don’t think any of them are objectively qualified because no one has been nominated and once they’re nominated you’ll bobble your head at notions of qualification for no reason other than Biden says so.