J.C.MacSwell

Right. So what's wrong (political deal making aside, which you can respect or not respect for whatever reasons) with announcing, or better yet allowing it to be assumed, that the choice would be based on the best candidate available all things considered, and make one step toward changing that evidence?

Another country joins the long list of countries effectively sanctioning Russia's ability to do business with the West...Russia itself! https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/26/energy/poland-russia-gas/index.html "Russian energy giant Gazprom informed Poland’s state-run gas firm PGNiG said that it will “entirely suspend” gas supplies along the Yamal pipeline starting Wednesday morning, PGNiG said in a statement on Tuesday." Hopefully the West can mitigate much of Poland's energy needs and this bites Russia in the ass.

Back when there were no horses in North America any male without one was given one...good times...

Who here is claiming the pre-announcement has nothing to do with race?

What exactly do you mean? Everyone where? Here? And which announcement are you referring to? The actual nomination announcement for KJB or the pre-announcement that it would be based on a specific race? (and gender)

It's certainly possible, but I think very unlikely. I think China might support Russia, but certainly would not care to participate directly.

Sorry. Sloppy grammar and I was a little lazy in the punctuation: Where I referred to "the extreme right", I meant in the context of global warming. Moreover, those considered to be on the extreme right on climate change, climate change deniers, does not automatically make them on the extreme right with regard to guns. Global warming is not an existential threat to mankind. There are existential threats to mankind, and though it could exacerbate them, it's not one. There is no realistic expectation that it will be, expansion to a red giant in 7 billion years aside. Burning off all known sources of fossil fuels might have many negative effects, but the threat of nuclear war is much, much more of a concern for mankind. What makes you think I don't care? The fact that I'm unwilling to support lies or exaggerations coming from either side? Am I supposed to reply here that you don't care about nuclear war? How might that help solve anything? How does misrepresenting the problem, and attacking someone to encourage them to believe the misrepresentation, help lead to solutions? If we're going to accomplish what we need to accomplish, we're going to need help and accurate thinking from liberals. How and why they get sidetracked is also on topic.

Exactly. The actual context of the 12 years was the concern of a possible tipping point which could slowly lead to areas permanently flooding, people in many areas displaced and/or at greater risk etc. Very serious, Very needing to be addressed....but nothing close to a threat of imminent demise. Nothing close to an existential threat, which was consistently suggested by many politicians on the left, and often touted as "the greatest threat to mankind", with the most extreme on the left teaching children that the world might end in 12 years. Compare with the real existential threat, nuclear war, and all the people that have already been killed and displaced in wars since that report came out. There was no "nuance" of any accuracy from the loudest from either side (there rarely is), but the claims of the political left were most bizarre. Politically they were left unchecked, often with the usual beat down of anyone attempting to be accurate. They had excuses for doing so, ranging from being fed a misleading interpretation of the report to believing they were morally justified for their lack of intellectual integrity. Compare with Trump's "look it's snowing out...where's the global warming?" or words to that effect...equally stupid...certainly no more helpful...totally inaccurate...but in absolute terms closer to reality. Hopefully you find a third party that finds so much space they can drive right up the middle, start the hard work and make some progress. If I told you that was the extreme right meant in the context of global warming, maybe that might increase your understanding. But I do realize it's quite common to assume that anyone, right, left or centre, holds a package of beliefs consistent with their position on political spectrum. I honestly don't know why, nor do I really understand why there seems to be some degree of truth to it.

In fairness the extreme left can be included as well. The issue with them is that, for example, when they scream we only have 12 years to live, no one on the left corrects them to give context to where the 12 years comes from, and rob the left of credibility in the eyes of any reasonable moderate who is well aware it is a real concern that needs to be addressed. They sit back comfortably in their seat on a jet, knowing they have done their part by screaming the loudest, oblivious to the fact they are almost as bad (that's for INow...I wouldn't want to be accused of false equivalency) as those on the extreme right...which is what they consider everyone to be that's to the right of them.

All Quiet on the Conservation Front? Germany is a prime example of being so (legitimately?) afraid of pushing Putin toward use of Nuclear weapons and at the same time legitimately concerned with the effect an abrupt turn away from their economy's dependance on Russian fossil fuels. So along with many others they continue to fuel the Russian's economy and the war and Russian atrocities along with it by continuing purchases from Russia. It seems to me increased production from other sources should be maximized, especially where it can be increased short term without further excessive commitment to fossil fuels long term, but even turning to more dependance on coal is better than dealing with the results of any use of nuclear weapons. But further to that, a war time fossil fuel austerity program should be put in place to minimize unnecessary fossil fuel use, regardless of source...since all use effects the global pressure on fuel supplies and reserves. Countries like Canada, Australia and the US, that have banned Russian fossil fuels, should participate as well, not just those in Europe and elsewhere that are clearly on side with Ukraine in heart and mind but still paying the Russians for gas and oil. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/23/could-a-behavioural-change-campaign-save-energy-and-cut-russian-gas-imports Poster circa WW2 shown in the article encouraging saving energy for the war effort: While I wouldn't necessarily call this a win/win for the effort to bolster Ukraine and helping the environment it certainly might be a "less lose/less lose".

I wish it was OT.

Pretty much everyone in this thread has expressed this same opinion. So we don't agree with her on that if that is in fact what she is saying in that 45 second clip. Can we not respect her opinion and consider what might motivate them? Would she feel the same way if KJB had been simply nominated as the best available candidate? You want to encourage people to ask KJB if she thinks she was handed her job because she's a black women? I think a fairer question and on the only real point of contention that seems to remain in this thread would be to ask KJB how she feels about it being announced prior to her nomination that a black women would be chosen.

So toward tying this to the topic at hand Phi, what effort have you made to find out how black women actually feel about Biden's pre-announcement/(announcement of race and gender prior to announcing the pick)? The thoughts of the young black girl in Koti's link seemed to have been set aside pretty quickly. Not saying you in particular did so. I don't think we need to agree with her completely to respect her opinion. Or is simply calling her the right names and gender showing sufficient respect in your mind?

Given that, how is it okay to refer to them as Asian? Honest question.

I would certainly agree it can be, especially when it's just assumed their opinions should be self serving.

Right. That's a good thing, correct? Even though a substantial majority were against raciallizing and genderizing the selection a majority liked the pick. Maybe many are more principled than racist in their thinking?...and let's not assume the remainder that KJB did not win over were against her due to her gender or colour of her skin. I put it in the form of a question in hopes the keywords I used would have the context I hoped for. "do black women like the way biden handled the scotus pick?" The first thing that came up seeming to have even vaguely the right context was a Fox News article citing an ABC poll, so I went to the ABC article. It had a link to the poll that gets blocked on this computer which has had some issues but I will likely see it tomorrow when I am on my laptop if I choose to look closer. But I obviously didn't find exactly what I was asking for.

Not a typo. I actually misread it. So my numbers are off with regard to how minorities disagree with choosing only from black females. It's 28% not considerably less than that, but my point stands. If it's clear that a considerable number of blacks weren't comfortable picking only from black woman I think it's fair to say that even if a majority of them supported it...it would seem likely they were less comfortable with the way it was handled. But +1 for reading the link and picking that up.

Obviously I'm not going to do that but here is a poll from prior to the announcement that it will be KJB, so no reflection on her: https://abcnews.go.com/US/majority-americans-biden-nominees-supreme-court-vacancy-poll/story?id=82553398&cid=social_twitter_abcn 76% of Americans polled thought that all candidates should be considered. The breakdown doesn't give the results for black women specifically but it does mention that 28% of whites were in favour of considering only black women...which indicates minorities were considerably less in favour...funny that...seems like they're a principled lot. Am I the only one that does not find that surprising? Given that, even if a majority of black women were in favour overall and happy with the pick, I would expect many, possibly even a majority of them, might consider Biden's approach disrespectful. Regardless of how you measure "better" in politics or sport, respectful and disrespectful can be measured in the same manner.

Imagine if in 1997 it was announced that it had been decided that Golf's player of the year award was going to go to a black man. Obviously this would seem like a joke and take nothing away from Tiger Woods winning the award. Now let's imagine if Woods hadn't had quite the dominant year he had, was a top contender but who was best that year was more debatable and the same thing was announced. I think everyone here could recognize that as being unfair, and especially disrespectful to Woods So what's the difference that it's politics and not sport? You can suspect the motives of the GOP, or at least some of there members. You can suspect the motives of the elder J Petersen. But if can't see his point as described in the OP of this thread you might be suffering from some level of the racism that is said to be systemic... perhaps some mutated variant of Trump derangement syndrome...or simply some politically driven mental block that seems to be polarizing far too many people. The OP: The only thing missing that I think we generally agree on is that being female and being an unrepresented or underrepresented minority can reasonably be considered an attribute given the current makeup of the SCOTUS and the current political climate. Now Swansont might think the analogy is more like having evaluated all the top players and after recognizing that the top choice has come down to a black player, or down to a few that all are black. If that was true then it would have simply been a disrespectful announcement (and no less so if the committee or person making the pick claimed they were fulfilling some promise when getting elected), but if that was true the case certainly has not been made. I've seen no sign of Biden trying to make that case...and why would he not if it was true? Why have his handlers not tried to make that case for him if it was indeed what transpired?

First and foremost, KJB was. Obviously not by getting chosen, but by her race and gender being used for political purposes. But I guess that can be swept under the rug by anyone that feels she benefited from the overall process.

Try again some other day. Today is Windsday...

I will respond to this. I think the thought police thing you seem to have going is particularly cheap. Sorry if it's not a long rant.

Let's start with that. Why would you expect us to?

Then you haven't been reading to understand any of MigL's posts. But I welcome you to show how you came to the same conclusion Swansont suggested.