MSC

Last I checked, being a racist isn't a protected characteristic. Standing up to racists, is a good thing. Taking an addicts heroin away could be perceived by them to be "flipping" them off, but it's better than enablement. It doesn't matter if they feel flipped off, in reality, they weren't! In fact, they were done a service. By not capitulating to racist ideologies, we set a boundary that it isn't tolerated anywhere; no matter who is on the receiving end of it, white, black etc. Biden is the leader of the executive branch of government, he isn't a therapist to racists nor is he their parent. You mean pointing out he was sticking to a campaign promise and being transparent? You tell me how that isn't a good thing? You cannot please everyone. Why should he try to please racists more than the people that voted for him? Voted for him knowing he made that promise I might add?Political mandate knocking! Is something only good if 100% of people recognize it as such? Because by that standard, everything is bad.

No, Which Biden hasn't literally done. But since racists aren't the majority, the optics of metaphorically giving them the finger wins over others. Black conservatives for example. To be clear, bidens not actually flipping anyone off. Don't know why I'm having to argue that. That's a bottom of the barrel type argument dude. Did you really not understand that I was being metaphorical or are you just grasping at straws? In what world is the first woman whom is black to be on the Supreme Court not social progress? In upside-down land? This is getting comical. Are you just doing satire?

Wonder how it polled among black Republicans. You just need to look at how Collins, Murkowski, Romney, McConnell and Cheney are being treated by the rest of the GOP right now, to know this currently rings true. Or Manchin on the democrats side. I don't think any of them could win a presidential election tbh.

By modeling good behavior and saying it's about damn time there was some more diversity on the court. Republicans got to have their picks, they were white, yippee for white people, we had the last turn. Time for someone else.

It's a projection. His only fall claim to wrong doing at this point has been dialed back to "but it looks bad to some people." You're definitely not the one obsessed with optics so don't worry about it. I think this thread has probably just run its course.

No. It's not even that similar of a scenario. Need to revisit this. I would hug all people. That does not mean I can hug all people at once. What do you want Biden to do? Put multiple people onto one chair? Where does this cater to everyone all at once or not at all mentality come from? It's one seat on a court where white people are already represented. Why are people so offended at being told directly and transparently It's time for someone else to have a turn. This is basic kid stuff man. If there is one slice of cake left and one person hasn't yet had any, why oh why would it be wrong to give them the cake?

That is what Biden has been trying to do the entire time and he campaigned on unity and harmony! How is trying to appoint the first black woman to the Supreme Court not changing things? And how exactly is he meant to change things quickly within one year and a slim majority in the senate? This system wasn't built from the ground up, overnight yesterday with Biden at the helm. You don't think every politician sets out to change things and struggles to do a thing because of all the red tape? Keep in mind exactly what Biden inherited, leadership of a country where a sizeable fraction of it is in a personality cult centered around Donald Trump. Cult member adherence to a narrative is one of the HARDEST things to break. Do me a favor, think back to the year 2014, and who you were then, if Obama had done this then, and a black woman was going to be confirmed to the Supreme Court then, and Obama had stated so before, would you have spoken up then? Would you have shouted discrimination? I read your posts, but noticed a distinct lack of answers to pretty much every question I've put to you. I read the posts, they just didn't convince me that you had reasonably countered any of my points and a lot remain ignored. It's not my opinion that for it to be a breach of the law in the eyes of a court, the bar is set at proof of concrete harm. Where is the proof of concrete harm? That's what would be required if the discrimination takes place in employment, Healthcare, education etc so why would it be any different for the top level of the court itself? Is there some high crime and misdemeanor I don't know about?

Haven't we already been over this? Positive and negative discrimination, affirmative action, concrete harm, holistic review. I went over all of these. So why are you still implying that all forms of discrimination are wrong? Would you hold it against me if I didn't want to date a 78 year old woman as a married 28 year old man? Isn't that discriminatory? What If I don't want to sleep with black men because I'm heterosexual? Does that make me a homophobic bigot? What if I say I prefer hanging out with my African friends over my Scottish ones? Am I not being discriminatory? Like seriously, Biden shared a preference for an important job, a preference which favored a group of people normally left out, nobody was hurt, the preference isn't going to now be strictly enforced everytime and I'm supposed to buy that it was somehow a mistake or wrong of him to do so? Because a few people have an opinion about it? One that cannot really be backed up with anecdotal evidence of he said she said. What could even be done about it if the opinion had any merit? A civil suit for hurt feelings because a black woman got a promotion? Can you see why I'm having such a hard time with understanding this?

Biden was/is already alienated from nearly the other half of voting districts (but not voters.) due to this ever escalating hyperpartisan politics of the past few decades. He wasn't going to win fans amongst the Trump/q-anon wing of the Republican party, no-matter what he did in regards to this nomination. I mean a few of them believe he's a reptilian, cannibalistic pedophile... even though there is major fucking logic break between reptilian and cannibal by eating humans? A reptile isn't a cannibal if it eats a human dummies! At least get your weird conspiracy theories somewhat logically coherent! That's obviously not directed at you MigL. I know you don't believe that nonsense. Putting my angry tangent aside, my point, is just that this Supreme Court nomination was not even close to some fantastic olive branch that would have effectively nurtured non-partisan unity with voters and the districts. It was for black people, who identify very much so with their race by majority and consider it an important part of who they are. I mean, I don't feel the same way about my whiteness sure, maybe a little about my nationality I guess, my socioeconomic class is more important to me than both, but ultimately I'm pretty cosmopolitan in nature. Which drives me to ultimately just be happy for KBJs achievement and a win for a group of people long trodden on or ignored. I can dig the spirit of that completely. For me it's people first over politics any day, and nobody came to any real harm because of how Biden went about it. Without real harm, I just don't feel the need to be overly critical for the sake of being tough on Biden.

No and I never said it was. I was referring to Biden. I never said they were mutually exclusive? Of course it could happen. Almost did happen, still at threat of happening in 2024.

Actually when I brought it up, it was only to point out the distinct lack of them amongst eligible judges. I've heard none of these arguments coming from the people in the best position to be making the arguments that they specifically lost out here. Ted Cruz certainly wasn't up for the nomination, thank God. That's just it though, a perception is not the same as the truth and there was nothing suppressive about this act! Preaching to the choir, but I just wanted to contribute toward your point. Yup. Voters gotta vote and a politicians gotta politician. It's a sucky situation sure but it's either that or a dictatorship and I know which I prefer.

Who's perceptions matter more here though? The majority of the country or a small few? Ultimately no matter what we do, there will be some who perceive it to be good, and some who perceive it to be bad and some who just don't really give a shit either way. If you're like me, and believe in moral objectivism and context relativism, objections can be understandable when you factor in the person's perspective, but objections being understandable, is not the same as them having the merit of the truth. If Biden did the right thing, why should it matter if there are negative perceptions when those perceptions may not be reasonable, fair, accurate or complete? I don't know, I guess to me, being explicit about characteristic criteria for KBJ seems like Bidens way of giving racists the big ol middle finger fuck you. One thing I feel we are glossing over, is that at the end of it all, Biden has the same rights as everyone else. There has to be some room for his freedom of expression and first ammendment rights. It's not like he nominated Kim Kardashian for the spot because he heard she was trying to pass the bar in California. I mean; it would be ideal if we lived in a world where we don't have to worry about race or racism. It would be ideal if it wasn't pretty historical moment for a black woman to sit on the Supreme Court. But unfortunately, racists exist, bigots exist and sometimes we have to engage in direct speech-acts in our battle against those sorts of ideologies. We also have to consider recent events and how they have contributed to the position Biden found himself in. The US was living under Trump, racists were emboldened, black people like George Floyd were being murdered by police, denied their rights and felt the brunt of Trumps covert policy war against them trying to essentially rob them of their ability to vote as American Citizens. For every strong attempt to disenfranchise some group of people, there is a counter reaction to re-enfranchise them, to try to rebalance the scales or just get them balanced for the first time. I know MigL that you are arguing in good faith here. Which I respect. I need to ask though, what would it take to convince you that there was nothing wrong with Biden making it clear what sort of person he wanted to pick? Other than the wrongness of a society that made him feel like he needed to make and take a stand and say that black women matter of course. I suppose what I am ultimately trying to ask, is don't you think your expectations of Biden are a little too idealistic and not realistic enough when we factor in the full context of the United States?

Looks like Russia is threatening moving Nukes around if Finland and Sweden join NATO. Am I the only one who is unfazed by this? There are Nukes aimed everywhere already so what's a few more at this point? Move them around. Most likely all talks of using them are bluffs anyway. If it weren't a bluff, I think Kyiv would be a smoking radioactive crater by now.

Morally or ethically? No. No bad taste in my mouth. Either way it was about God damn time. However you have phrased it in a way, where I'm realizing that in terms of strategy and tactics, it does actually leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.. or not bad so much as a bit sour. I think, the context seems to fit better for Biden just making the declaration that way, for the benefit of his generation, as opposed to most everyone else. I suppose in some ways, Biden was also making a moral statement. That it is right and just that a black woman be on SCOTUS. Here is someone whom is qualified. But yeah, if it was me, I'd have just said I picked the most qualified person and dare the opposition to bring up her being black or a woman. As politicians go, Biden is a pretty straight shooter. Maybe it's his age or I dunno. I can conceive of baiting the GOP like that due to adherence to a few of Machiavellis principles when it comes to playing the game of politics. He's a tad out of date and his name and work seemed to end up tied into theories of evil. To me he was just somewhat of a political philosopher and proto-sociologist almost. Unless Biden is VERY good at that sort of strategy, to me he just doesn't strike me as the type. If he is though, then maybe being explicit is long term policy motivated. For example; this could be a way to test the waters on how much influence he can have on the structure and mechanisms of the court or just one a few democratic senators who play hardball like Manchin. I dunno. Pure speculation.

Especially since they don't seem to want help for it or are too afraid to take it.

To be clear, when I used this argument, it was more to Steelman the Rephblican line of "oh she only represents 4-6%" line of bullshit. By saying "but if we follow your logic and apply it in a different way, it actually stands against your point." In this case, within that same logical framework, it can be reasonably argued that she represents over half of voter demographics within the makeup of the Supreme Court by way of being a woman. To put it simply, sometimes you have to meet people where they are at and lead them away from the narrow-mindedness gradually.

True. That is undeniable. What is disputable about that opinion, is whether or not it is justified, rational or reasonable. My opinion on that opinion leans toward unjustified How exactly are the demands of women different based on color? Apologies if I'm misinterpreting what you said, but the idea that all the requirements and demands are different, imo is being narrow-minded because it's buying into this myth that we have little in common with each other and might as well be different species. Help, recognition/appreciation, respect, good health, happy family, decent community, good social networks, food, water, access to education, stable housing, affordable childcare and good opportunities for their children. This is what has me unsure of what you meant 😆 I'd say the needs and desires of people I listed there are pretty much universal. Color or creed.

While the world is a fast and busy place, the political process is slow and strangled in red tape.

I think this is the part that stubs the most people. From a legal perspective, you are allowed to include protected characteristics, as well as the non protected ones like competency, into your evaluation in certain instances as part of something called holistic review. It is in accordance with affirmative action policies used in schools. Truely illegal prejudicial discrimination on protected characteristics is when the ONLY thing being reviewed is one or two of those protected characteristics and skill, competency, experience and suitability are all ignored. Applied to the Supreme Court, before a nominee can be considered, you have to conduct that review on the court, public sentiment, campaign promises and a variety of other factors. KBJ represents over half of voters, because she is a woman. However, ultimately as a justice she is there to represent the interests and rights of every citizen/perm resident of the USA. One thing I'm curious of, has anyone suggested any other potential nominees from whatever side of the political spectrum? Who exactly is or was the competition? Rounding back to discrimination; (sorry for the tangent) there is a legal term used in some courts in cases of discrimination to determine if a wrongdoing has taken place, based on consequentialist ethics. Concrete Harm. Let's say we both have a friend who is disabled, they apply to get a physics degree at a good school. They have awesome grades. He has done data entry for his father's business since he was 14 and applies to do it part time with a prestigious firm offering a multitude of entry level data entry positions. Let's imagine they got rejected from both the school and the job, and it turned out the hiring manager and the interviewer were later snitched on that they had used some pejorative term and stated they didn't even bother looking at the relevant factors because they assumed they would fail, so we're rejected solely because of their disability. Losing out on a job (wages) and given an unfair interview process would constitute concrete harm when it can equal loss of wages, access to education and direct emotional harm. The friend has a right to sue. We don't have a right to sue because we empathize with our friend and it hurts us. We haven't suffered any concrete harm. Only our friend has. In the case of a Supreme Court nomination, it's already highly selective, there are probably multiple good choices and multiple bad choices on hand when each seat becomes available. The fact of the matter, is that the only people being considered, largely have their life in order, make a good living and are considered invaluable to society in general through being a judge. How can you prove a person of that caliber, whether white or black, man woman or other, etc... experienced concrete harm by not getting nominated to a Supreme Court position when they are already held in such high esteem?

How could someone have made you forget stuff or removed entire words from existence? Is that rational? How much of what you think would you class as suspicions vs certainties? How would you describe your inner dialogue? On a scale of 1-5, 5 being within your control, 1 not being in your control at all. Do you believe all of your inner dialogical agents have your best interests at heart? Is challenging and questioning some of your scarier thoughts difficult for you? How did you end up homeless and where is your family in all this? To be frank, You are only 2 years younger than I am, but seem to be going through very similar issues that I myself went through. I was homeless, on the verge of psychosis, doing drugs, angry with everyone and burning bridges left, right and centre. I have about 8 out of 10 ACEs, (Adverse childhood experiences) although I think the questionnaire is in need of updating or may have already made a revised version. Anyway that's just used as a psychiatric tool to evaluate what sort of childhood a person may have had, in regards to suspected PTSD. (DISCLAIMER, I am not a psychiatrist and as such I am not in the position to diagnose anyone with any mental illnesses and you should never assume you know exactly what you may or may not have without consulting with a professional Psychiatrist.) That said, in your position it is difficult to find that sort of help and you can't therapy away the emotional strain of being homeless. Believe me, I know that. So first things first. You need stable housing. Would you permit me to make contact with some charities or local government housing officials to see how we could go about getting you a place to stay? Out of curiosity, and with zero intent to judge, have you at any point in your life recieved a diagnosis of a mental illness, neurological condition or a life long physical disability? Are you currently taking any drugs and if yes; do you want to quit? I can help with some of this stuff, without you having to give me any identifying information on you, save town or city of residence. You seem like an intelligent and caring person at heart. I think you're probably completely capable of taking the steps you need to take back a firm hold of your life again. Now, I can only talk to people and give you pointers. I can't do anything else other than that. The most that we can all do for you is encourage you to take those steps, so that you can reach a point where you are safe enough to truly think and action how you want to make your mark on the world, in a positive way.

Because America has a precedent based judicial system maybe? Here are the facts of the situation as I see them: 1. Biden said that this time around, a black woman will be appointed. 2. Biden did not say, that ONLY black woman will be appointed in the future. 3. Most of the arguments used here to claim that this was an illegally and ethically problematic appointment via racial discrimination, came from Senator Ted Cruz. 4. Ted Cruz had NOTHING critical to say, when Trump explicitly told everyone that his nominee would be a woman. 5. Race and Gender are BOTH protected characteristics. 6. Biden only nominates, he doesn't confirm. Since Senators ultimately decide who gets the job, any claims of discrimination can only be directed at them. 7. So far, Republican senators have even admitted she is qualified enough for the job, but they will still vote against her. So if competency isn't the main stay of THEIR selection criteria, they can only be basing their decision on two things, Political Partisanship and Race. In conclusion, all I want from my friends here whom are on the opposite side of this to answer for me; How is the appointment of the FIRST Woman whom is black, to a seat on the Supreme Court, racist or discriminatory, when her appointment has not implicated in any way, that a white man will never get the nomination and confirmation again?

I'd love to see her try and do that! (Sarcasm) Nothing could be a worse move for the French people. From a geopolitical standpoint, it would be a logistical and military nightmare. Weapons from Russia to France would have to go through NATO territory, they would be switching sides only to immediately step into being completely surrounded by NATO and the EU. If France were hit with even half of the sanctions currently being applied to Russia, it would be chaos. Even if Putin were on the right side of history (which he most certainly isn't), this would be such an imbecillic move. Does she actually have much of a chance at taking power in France Phi? I'm not really that informed on French politics tbh. Cue Russia claiming Finland is run by Neo-Nazis and talk of sending Russian "Peacekeepers" into Finland on a "Special military operation". The use of "Special" here, denotes what you must be, in order think anyone is going to buy that crock of shit a second time, when it didn't work the first time. Just a little bit "Special".

So would you also say that Donald Trumps explicit promise to appoint a woman was also negative discrimination? I think the main point here; is that for both Trump and Biden, neither of them ignored the main selection criteria. IE, a judge/jurist in good standing in their field with a wealth of experience in rendering verdicts and an excellent memory and familiarity with the constitution. It seems clear to me, that the keystone of affirmative action, holistic review, was applied professionally. I have realised a massive assumption that has been made about the entirety of the history of SCOTUS. Out of every Supreme Court justice, nomatter the selection criteria used, how do we know they were truly the best pick for the job? We can maybe say, that up until now, they have been the best picks for a political party. But how do we evaluate whether or not they were the best picks for the American People? At the end of the day, I just don't buy the mental gymnastics one is required to perform, that appointing the first woman whom is black, to a seat on the Supreme court; is insulting to black women? There is only ever one seat up for grabs on the SC at anytime. There is nobody on this earth who can possibly take the spot that represents all demographics. As it stands, KBJ represents over half the country, as both a black person and as a woman. I don't know why people are choosing to ignore that "black woman" is one aspect of her identity, rather than two. Since we are on the topic of protected characteristics, why shouldn't every lawyer who has not been in the field long enough to become a judge, not cry foul by claiming age discrimination? Or maybe there is a judge in a wheelchair who feels completely invisible and has never once been up for consideration for nomination. Ultimately all cries for this to be challenged on the basis of race discrimination, will not hold enough weight. The votes are there. KBJ will sit on the court. She will be the first woman whom is black on the court. She will be the first person to bring public defense experience with her, and unless anything changes in regards to SC appointees term limits; she will be on that court for the rest of her life or until she chooses to retire. I think at this point, since the question revolves around whether or not she was or wasn't the best pick for the American people; we have very little information to go on until she has actually spent some time on the court making decisions. This is a science forum in the end, so let's all act like it; and reserve our judgements and conclusions for after a period of critical observation. Maybe we can all come back to this thread in a year or two.

Okay, I'll bite. Who are "they"? How often would you say you think things like this? This all sadly sounds very familiar to me. You remind me of my friend Bobby.

Other than Clarence Thomas and a small handful of black Republicans and far right activists, I can't think of any. Sure, the powerful do tend to kick down, but that's an issue with power, not race. Plenty of rich and powerful white people shit on other white people so I haven't a clue why you would point it out for just black people unless you're a closet bigot.