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?

[maxparrish]

Care to prove that "the most qualified candidate" is a real thing?

Someone being more qualified is an assessment based on facts. The fact that John Doe flunked out of law school and an IQ of 87, and Jane Doe was first in her law school and has an IQ of 145 suggests she is more qualified than Mr. Doe.

These are, of course, not as useful when comparing fine graduations. A law degree from Harvard doesn't indicate such a person is substantially more likely to be qualified that someone with a law degree from Standford. But facts are not subjective, they are facts. But how they are weighted have both a subjective and objective competent.

Still, with perhaps one exception, the potential list of nominees are less qualified than previous modern nominations - so much so that by modern standards, they are distinctly affirmative action hires.

Not that this should be a surprise. According to the link below, 90% of all attorneys are Caucasian, and 75% of them are male. That leaves a pool of 22.5% Caucasian females to select from. On the other hand, Blacks make up only 4%. Hispanics comprise 3%. And Asians are the least represented at 2% of the total number.

Hence, the population pool of legally trained black women is reduced to 1% to 2% of the total number of America's attorneys.

Now, one statistic thrown around is that the pool is 7%. If that is true, then that number likely means that 7% of judges (of any type) are black women. And if that is true, then clearly the pool is inflated by huge numbers of affirmative action appointments at the lower levels... disparate impact often meaning discrimination (in this case against Caucasian males).

Clearly, as previously noted, the one among the seven potential nominations would probably rate as qualified, and the others not. NONE should rate as well qualified (e.g. Amy Barrett).

 

[bomberfox]

Someone needs to explain to me why if a minority is nominated, its because they were a minority and not because they were qualified, but if a white guy is nominated for the same position, its automatically assumed its because he was the most qualified for the job and not some other nefarious reason.

Or why it was wrong for Ronald Reagan to do the same thing before he nominated Sandra Day O’conner.

 

[bomberfox]

Yes, they can and many judges do that every single day.

Judges that apply their political and social views are judicial activists.

A reading of the legislative history and the 14th Amendment clearly shows that the word "person" was specifically intended to only apply to the now former Black slaves.

It was never intended to apply to anyone other than the former Black slaves.

The word "person" was chosen over the word "citizen" because we all know some people would have made the argument/claim that the former Black slaves were not US citizens.

It was necessary, just and proper to protect the former Black slaves from those who would argue they were not US citizens, thus the word "person" was chosen.

It was never intended to apply to illegal aliens in the 20th and 21st Centuries, but thanks to judicial activists, we have a faulty and bad interpretation because they substituted their beliefs for law.

Intent means little. If they intended it to only be for black slaves they would have written it down.

 

[bomberfox]

No. Not for that reason. The Supreme Court is not a representative body. That would be the House of Representatives and the Senate, respectively. And since black women make up no more than between 5% and 6% of the American population, it makes more sense to add a Hispanic male justice if we wanted the Court to be truly "representative."

That having been said, I have nothing against a black woman being nominated to the Supreme Court. Naturally, I would want to have a constitutional conservative black woman Supreme Court justice to be nominated and confirmed to the bench. I presume you would want someone who is politically progressive in her views, bongsaway?

To me i think the precedent was set with Reagan as he said he would nominate a woman to the supreme court. I dont fault Reagan for doing so.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Point is, only turds nominate activist justices who legislate from the bench.

Like Gorsuch, who spoke at Federalist Society/GOP meeting last weekend decrying "political" judges...

 

[Master Debator]

Someone being more qualified is an assessment based on facts. The fact that John Doe flunked out of law school and an IQ of 87, and Jane Doe was first in her law school and has an IQ of 145 suggests she is more qualified than Mr. Doe.

I'm not looking for suggestions, I'm looking for objective evidence. What is objectively confirmed by your example is that one of those people has a higher IQ than the other, what is subjective, is whether or not IQ has any relevance to the person making the decision.

These are, of course, not as useful when comparing fine graduations. A law degree from Harvard doesn't indicate such a person is substantially more likely to be qualified that someone with a law degree from Standford. But facts are not subjective, they are facts. But how they are weighted have both a subjective and objective competent.

What is also subjective is what criteria is important to the person doing the hiring or this case nominating.

Let's step away from a Supreme Court pick and look at a question that is more discernably subjective like what is the best meal? Is there any way to decide what the objectively best meal is? How could we? Do you value healthy over flavor? Spicy over savory? Do you prefer your meat is killed in an ethical way? Do you not eat meat at all? No one is going to have the same criteria for what the best meal is because we all have different preferences we are trying to fill.

Still, with perhaps one exception, the potential list of nominees are less qualified than previous modern nominations - so much so that by modern standards, they are distinctly affirmative action hires.

Less qualified in what way? What criteria are you using to come to that assessment? And how do you eventually find the golden candidate, the most qualified in a way that isn't a subjective choice between a number of candidates that meet your criteria?

 

[bave]

As long as they haven't committed rape, they won't.

Only those that do, are.

Even McConnell declared that Ford was credible. I believe her and this idea that if details are forgotten discredit's her testimony is nonsense.

The detail she IS going to remember are her emotions, and the hot beer breath breathing down her neck when he raped her. Unimportant details, quite logically, will be forgotten, she wasn't thinking about how years in the future she would have to testify against a scotus nominee and should have made a point to keep contemporaneous notes for that future event she couldn't possibly have foreseen

Kavanaugh, indeed, is a rapist. But leave it to republicans to put two perverts on the court and one in the Whitehouse.

LOL.

She doesn't know when it happened. She doesn't even know where it happened. The witnesses she named as present had no recollection of any such event.

Yea, you label him a rapist? That's not partisan hyperbullshit at all.

If that is your threshold, then I assume you believe Biden is a rapsit as well? He has been accused on all sorts of sexual depravity.

No way. He's called the Chief Executive? Who knew?

Show me where SCOTUS works under the President. I realize that you never read the Constitution, but SCOTUS gets its power from Congress. Not the President.

The Cabinet works for POTUS. Congratulations on knowing that!

So a nominated but confirmed by Senate cabinet member works for the POTUS. But a nominated but confirmed by Senate jurist does not.

Makes sense.....

 

[jotathought]

Answering a simple question based on the arguments you keep putting forth. You keep making the argument that there is some mythical "most qualified" candidate and so far you haven't proven that even exists. Your argument holds no water until you satisfy the underlying premise, that there is such a thing as a most qualified candidate.

Okay .. let me retort .. if the pool of resources is slimmed down to less than 25% of candidates, are you satisfied that the most qualified candidate will be introduced?

 

[jotathought]

Kavanaugh succeeded, he bamboozled the right.

The narrative against Kavanagh was .. bullshit .. let's agree with that ..

 

[Master Debator]

Okay .. let me retort .. if the pool of resources is slimmed down to less than 25% of candidates, are you satisfied that the most qualified candidate will be introduced?

I'm not satisfied you've proven there is such a thing as the most qualified candidate. Prove it.

 

[tres borrachos]

LOL.

She doesn't know when it happened. She doesn't even know where it happened. The witnesses she named as present had no recollection of any such event.

Yea, you label him a rapist? That's not partisan hyperbullshit at all.

If that is your threshold, then I assume you believe Biden is a rapsit as well? He has been accused on all sorts of sexual depravity.



So a nominated but confirmed by Senate cabinet member works for the POTUS. But a nominated but confirmed by Senate jurist does not.

Makes sense.....

SCOTUS does not work for the President. I suggest you pick up a copy of the Constitution at your local bookstore and read it.

It isn't my fault you never read the Constitution. Because I'm feeling generous, I'll even get you started so you know where to look once you see the Constitution for the first time.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-iii

 

[mrjurrs]

Here's my take at this point. No one on the Supreme Court should be a champion of anything except the Constitution, as written. If it needs changing, there is a process for doing just that.

That would be too narrow of a view. SCOTUS rulings and precedent (until this court anyway) have expanded the Constitution for over 200 years. Besides, if the founders wanted the Constitution interpreted as written they would not have included Article 5.

 

[maxparrish]

I'm not looking for suggestions, I'm looking for objective evidence. What is objectively confirmed by your example is that one of those people has a higher IQ than the other, what is subjective, is whether or not IQ has any relevance to the person making the decision.

What is also subjective is what criteria is important to the person doing the hiring or this case nominating. ...

Less qualified in what way? What criteria are you using to come to that assessment? And how do you eventually find the golden candidate, the most qualified in a way that isn't a subjective choice between a number of candidates that meet your criteria?

Actually, what is subjective is not the relevance of IQ, but the relevance of empirical results correlated with IQ, such as complex problem solving. If one does not think that this ability should result in more useful or consistent findings of the law, then so be it.

All work requires three elements: Knowledge, skills, and ability. Those factors are roughly correlated with prior experience, performance, and training. Some law schools are distinctly more demanding of learning, less tolerant of insufficient demonstrations of competency, and require a higher level of student cognitive ability (i.e. LSAT scores). Someone with this background is more likely (but not certain) to be more talented and skilled at the law.

The same holds true for breadth of experience in law practice, having a low rate of judgments (as a trial jurist) being overturned by higher courts, the recognition of the professional quality of written opinion and academic work.

Appointments that check all the boxes tend to do better in writing consistent, applicable, and clear opinions melding with prior constitutional law than those who don't - at least that is what the ADA and most lawyers believe.

Therefore, I believe that most (not all) of the potential black female nominees aren't very good...or worse. None have more than several months on the appeals court level, none are noted as having high quality and impressive writing of opinions or academic works, and several have very narrow and limited experience in niche law. The only candidate that jumps out at me is the woman who is a California Supreme Court Justice of many years. While I've not looked at or heard any commentary on her writing and opinions, I suspect she would be qualified by background and experience.

 

[Master Debator]

Actually, what is subjective is not the relevance of IQ, but the relevance of empirical results correlated with IQ, such as complex problem solving. If one does not think that this ability should result in more useful or consistent findings of the law, then so be it.

All work requires three elements: Knowledge, skills, and ability. Those factors are roughly correlated with prior experience, performance, and training. Some law schools are distinctly more demanding of learning, less tolerant of insufficient demonstrations of competency, and require a higher level of student cognitive ability (i.e. LSAT scores). Someone with this background is more likely (but not certain) to be more talented and skilled at the law.

The same holds true for breadth of experience in law practice, having a low rate of judgments (as a trial jurist) being overturned by higher courts, the recognition of the professional quality of written opinion and academic work.

Appointments that check all the boxes tend to do better in writing consistent, applicable, and clear opinions melding with prior constitutional law than those who don't - at least that is what the ADA and most lawyers believe.

Therefore, I believe that most (not all) of the potential black female nominees aren't very good...or worse. None have more than several months on the appeals court level, none are noted as having high quality and impressive writing of opinions or academic works, and several have very narrow and limited experience in niche law. The only candidate that jumps out at me is the woman who is a California Supreme Court Justice of many years. While I've not looked at or heard any commentary on her writing and opinions, I suspect she would be qualified by background and experience.

I didn't ask you what you belived, I asked you to provide objective proof. Where is it? All you've given me are subjective notions like their writing not impressing you.

Forget food. Let's look at the NBA. Who's the objectively best player? We have plenty of objective stats to tell us who's the best 3 point shooter, the best defender, the most efficient. But which one of those stats is going to be relevant to who you think is best? Isn't that entirely subjective? Do you value three point shooting over defense? How about ability to stay healthy? How about turning over the board and just going by who entertains you the most? It's all subjective.

 

[Craig234]

From experience hardly any white men really know what its like to live in a country where a cop will look at you suspiciously even when you ride with a white guy. They dont know what its like to be stopped and frisked often at gunpoint several times a day.

I think there's some popular feeling about 'it's good to have Justices who can understand that point of view', but I don't think it has that much relevance in the Supreme Court. But it's hard to deny that people of color - Thomas excepted - can seem to bring some different perspectives that should be 'race based' but are more than the ideal of 'color blind'.

I'm not sure how much it affects rulings to 'understand' that that way. Justices hear from people, they hear from lawyers, they tend to weigh legal topics more than populist sentiment. A lot of the populist things are in the domain of lawmakers, where judges are 'applying rules'.

In other words, I think the issue is more complicated than 'white guy saying things unaware of a black point of view, then a black judge says 'you don't understand another point of view' and rules differently.' But I think there two 'political' or 'political' things about the racial diversity that stand out.

One is that I think people of color tend to feel more comfortable, more represented, by judges of color - Thomas excepted; the other is that white people often (i.e., mostly Democrats) recognize some sense of fairness around demographics not being very representative (the very white male history of the court).

The vast majority of the cases and legal issues don't involve things that involve things like relating to frisking. It's gotten to the point the dominant issues seem so be 'normal' judicial ideologies and the radical Federalist Society ideologies competing. A war to change the constitution which the right is currently winning with their 6-3 majority.

 

[iguanaman]

As long as all qualified white men go last in all aspects of life the left loonies will be happy.
Oh, and trumpism will continue to grow.

LOL How are white men going last? Your victimhood is showing.

 

[Craig234]

Like Gorsuch, who spoke at Federalist Society/GOP meeting last weekend decrying "political" judges...

I think there's a mix of judges and politicians who cynically use issues like 'opposing political judges', and some who are themselves blinded that they are hyper political and think that it's only the 'other side' that is. It's like how some people think that teaching racial history is a 'radical leftist political agenda', but that they aren't political.

 

[Craig234]

That would be too narrow of a view. SCOTUS rulings and precedent (until this court anyway) have expanded the Constitution for over 200 years. Besides, if the founders wanted the Constitution interpreted as written they would not have included Article 5.

You are very right. What we have are a lot of Americans who don't understand the constitution pretty much at all and have wrong and simplistic notions that there are 'judges with personal agendas wanting to ignore the constitution, and judges who put their personal agendas aside and follow the constitution, which is not the issue.

But they are easy to manipulate with that false and simple version of the courts. It allows for 'good' Republican judges and 'bad' Democratic judges, and slogans to cheer like 'don't legislate from the bench', and they feel like they are fighting for a good cause, to protect 'honest' following the constitution.

It's hard to help them learn more. Who do they listen to who is trying to explain things to them? They listen to people who are propagandists typically.

I've explained some of this here, but don't recall any right-wingers 'learning'. I'm not sure what it takes for the people who are indoctrinated like that to learn more.

 

[Master Debator]

LOL How are white men going last? Your victimhood is showing.

There have been 115 Supreme Court Justices in American history and all but 7 of them have been white men. White males Justices had an unbeaten record from the Founding in 1789 to 1967, a 233 year long winning streak. Poor bastards can't catch a break I tell ya.

 

[bave]

SCOTUS does not work for the President. I suggest you pick up a copy of the Constitution at your local bookstore and read it.

It isn't my fault you never read the Constitution. Because I'm feeling generous, I'll even get you started so you know where to look once you see the Constitution for the first time.

Blinded by the partisanship I see, does it hurt? I hope so.

I find your logical failings honestly pretty amusing, were it not sad. But hey, keep on keeping on with that hypocrisy, should do you wonders in November.

 

[tres borrachos]

Blinded by the partisanship I see, does it hurt? I hope so.

I find your logical failings honestly pretty amusing, were it not sad. But hey, keep on keeping on with that hypocrisy, should do you wonders in November.

You don't know the Constitution, as I just demonstrated, and you want to talk about partisanship? Your deflection is rejected.

Here are the facts. You had zero idea that SCOTUS answers to Congress, not the President. That's on you. Own your ignorance of the fundamental governing document of this nation.

 

[bomberfox]

Blinded by the partisanship I see, does it hurt? I hope so.

I find your logical failings honestly pretty amusing, were it not sad. But hey, keep on keeping on with that hypocrisy, should do you wonders in November.

The supreme court has no duty to the president.

 

[noonereal]

Which no one is suggesting.

Why?

It seems to be teh unwritten rule in sociaty now. No white men need apply. Women, blacks, other color people all go first.

 

[noonereal]

LOL How are white men going last? Your victimhood is showing.

Wake up!

This has been going on for decades.

 

[bomberfox]

LOL How are white men going last? Your victimhood is showing.

Expecting us to take his gripes seriously is an insult to one’s intelligence. Hes buying into alt right myths