The next Supreme Court judge

[StringJunky]

Is it a wise move for  Biden to limit the field  of potential candidates to black women just because there hasn't been one? Should not the best qualified person be chosen to such an important position, irrespective of gender and ethnicity? If that turns out, after collective deliberation, to be a black woman, then all well and good, but is it a sound way to do this? Is affirmative action not politicizing the process and discriminating against an equally qualified pool of candidates that don't fit that category? 

Occasional Republican ally of Democratic legislation seems to think so:

Quote

Republican Senator Susan Collins criticized President Joe Biden for his “clumsy” handling of the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, saying the president’s pledge to pick a Black woman is overly political. 

The comments by a moderate Republican signal that Democrats may fall short in their hopes to have bipartisan support for whomever Biden picks, given Collins is one of the most likely to vote in favor of the nominee. 

“I welcome the appointment of black females to the court and believe that diversity benefits the Supreme Court, but the way that the President has handled this nomination has been clumsy at best,” Collins said on ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday.

“It adds to the further perception that the court is a political institution like Congress when it’s not supposed to be” she said.  

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-30/collins-faults-biden-for-clumsy-handling-of-breyer-replacement

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by StringJunky

[iNow]

Not only wise, but about time. For too long, extremely qualified individuals were overlooked for not being white and male. Reagan pre announced he’d put a female on the court, and so did Trump. Now that Biden did it, however, the right wing is stirring up another furycane and everyone is getting all apoplectic.

 

 

[StringJunky]

I expected that from you,  iNow, I know you are an ideologist. Why is Susan Collins unhappy? 

[iNow]

Because she can’t win her primary without tribal signaling and giving her Fox News watching base reason to think she agrees with them 

Said another way, I seriously doubt she cares, but she needs to pretend she does 

Edited February 2, 2022 by iNow

[StringJunky]

@iNowOK. Thanks for your observation.  It seems she is up next for election again in 2027. Is that not a very long way away, such that she would be concerned much about that at this point in her tenure? Your point would have had considerable weight had she been up in the near future, I think. 

Edited February 2, 2022 by StringJunky

[iNow]

No, I stand corrected. Didn’t realize it was that far away. I still think it’s tribal signaling and she’s not behaving based on any specific principle or ideology, just unsure which tribe she feels the need to signal to or why. Appreciate you highlighting the flaw in my last post ✌️

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Should not the best qualified person be chosen to such an important position, irrespective of gender and ethnicity?

"Best qualified person" is a myth trotted out every time a white man doesn't make the cut.

How would one define 'best qualified' in the first place? Is a conservative approach to jurisprudence better/worse and a liberal approach? Can you be the 'best' if you lack perspective? Does everyone take a qualification test prior to being nominated? Were any of the previous justices considered 'best' by everyone? If two judges disagree is one 'right' and one 'wrong'?

You pick a person who you hope will do well while following an ideology that you agree with, and then you live with the results when they do as they please.

 

[MigL]

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

"Best qualified person" is a myth trotted out every time a white man doesn't make the cut.

What if one of the Mods said "Everyone's opinion counts, as long as their name begins with the 1st 25 letters of the alphabet" ???

If you limit the group under consideration, you are by definition, not getting the best overall, just the best of that limited group.

I would suggest, as INow has, that J Biden is also playing to his base; and I'd probably be more accurate.
( K Harris turned out to be a solid choice as VP )

Edited February 2, 2022 by MigL

[swansont]

The perspective of being a black woman is not a quality possessed by any of the current or past justices. If that’s a quality you want on the court, so that it would be more representative of the population, then black women would be the only qualified group. White men, for example, would not be qualified.

The GOP “concern” is manufactured. There should be no trouble finding a black woman with better judicial bona-fides than Amy Coney Barrett, who they deemed qualified to sit on the bench.

[StringJunky]

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

The perspective of being a black woman is not a quality possessed by any of the current or past justices. If that’s a quality you want on the court, so that it would be more representative of the population, then black women would be the only qualified group. White men, for example, would not be qualified.

The GOP “concern” is manufactured. There should be no trouble finding a black woman with better judicial bona-fides than Amy Coney Barrett, who they deemed qualified to sit on the bench.

It's not a 'GOP concern' per se, Lindsay Graham, for instance doesn't mind, which surprised me. The GOP don't appear to be monolithic on this. My possible concern, and Sen. Collins, is more for the principle of selection. She's not a closed-minded Republican. I'm an outsider looking in, maybe that makes a difference. MigL is an outsider also and seems to see the same angle. It's easy to say "Well, the GOP did it, so we will." Is that a good way to think in the long term, and keep the principled upper hand against the other side? If anything, it demeans the ability of the affirmatively chosen candidate because the goalposts were moved in their favour  for them to get the job.

Edited February 2, 2022 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's not a 'GOP concern' per se, Lindsay Graham, for instance doesn't mind, which surprised me. The GOP don't appear to be monolithic on this. My possible concern, and Sen. Collins, is more for the principle of selection. She's not a closed-minded Republican. I'm an outsider looking in, maybe that makes a difference. MigL is an outsider also and seems to see the same angle. It's easy to say "Well, the GOP did it, so we will." Is that a good way to think in the long term, and keep the principled upper hand against the other side?

What is the other side of a double edged sword???

[Phi for All]

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I'm an outsider looking in, maybe that makes a difference. MigL is an outsider also and seems to see the same angle. It's easy to say "Well, the GOP did it, so we will." Is that a good way to think in the long term, and keep the principled upper hand against the other side?

This tactic has worked well for the GOP. Do the dirtiest tricks you can and then pivot when your opponent retaliates in kind. Complain that they lack principles, force them to change their tactics, and then when it's your turn pivot back to the dirty tricks and negative campaigning. There's always voices like yours and MigL's calling for reform, but it's never when the GOP is being dirty. You allow the tit and complain about the tat.

[iNow]

30 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's easy to say "Well, the GOP did it, so we will." Is that a good way to think in the long term

Of course not, but when two sides are in pitched battle, one side cannot unilaterally disarm and hope to win anything other than annihilation. 

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This tactic has worked well for the GOP. Do the dirtiest tricks you can and then pivot when your opponent retaliates in kind. Complain that they lack principles, force them to change their tactics, and then when it's your turn pivot back to the dirty tricks and negative campaigning. There's always voices like yours and MigL's calling for reform, but it's never when the GOP is being dirty. You allow the tit and complain about the tat.

It's wrong, whichever side it comes from. The selection of Kavanaugh was a stinker, as we all know. I'm becoming less enamoured of the Dems, and they seem to play by the same playbook as the GOP. Same old shit, different actors in each successive administration.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

Of course not, but when two sides are in pitched battle, one side cannot unilaterally disarm and hope to win anything other than annihilation. 

I agree, it['s a sad state of affairs, the US judicial selection system being so political.

[iNow]

31 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's not a 'GOP concern' per se, Lindsay Graham, for instance doesn't mind

Specifically, he said he was okay with the judge from South Carolina. As he's the Senator from South Carolina, that is unsurprising. He's also not exactly representative of the majority of GOP these days. I see this all as phony manufactured outrage. Biden's being pilloried for being inclusive in his choice, and being told his inclusivity is representative of bias and exclusion. 

It's very Orwellian double-speak (like when the right decries cancel culture but then tries to cancel the Dixie Chicks, and Colin Kapernick, or ban books from schools, or ad infinitum). 

23 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

What is the other side of a double edged sword???

The face of blade, or the handle both come to mind.

18 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

There's always voices like yours and MigL's calling for reform, but it's never when the GOP is being dirty.

This is a solid point. The side being held to higher standards is the side which keeps losing bc their opponents can lie, cheat, and steal whenever they want and not get held to that same expectation of higher moral principle. 

It's a race to the bottom, I know. But again, you cannot unilaterally disarm. You must hold BOTH sides to the same higher standard, and that's just not happening. 

[zapatos]

6 hours ago, MigL said:

you are by definition, not getting the best overall,

Please define "best" as you used it in this sentence.

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

it['s a sad state of affairs, the US judicial selection system being so political.

It's always been political since the founding of the country. Let's not all sit here collectively clutching our pearls because something political happens to be breaking out in politics.

[zapatos]

40 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

If anything, it demeans the ability of the affirmatively chosen candidate because the goalposts were moved in their favour  for them to get the job.

Why? Because they are not otherwise qualified? The only person whose definition of "best" really matters at this point is Biden's. If "best" in his opinion includes "woman of color", then as swansont pointed out, ONLY women of color qualify. 

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's wrong, whichever side it comes from. The selection of Kavanaugh was a stinker, as we all know. I'm becoming less enamoured of the Dems, and they seem to play by the same playbook as the GOP. Same old shit, different actors in each successive administration.

I can appreciate your feelings towards the Dems, but I disagree that they use the same playbook as the GOP. Both sides are implementing the wills of competing extreme-wealth actors, but the GOP base has been declining over the years, even though they're better organized, which has forced them to cheat wherever possible. The Dems problems are different, since they seem to prefer an intellectual approach to emotionally charged issues that splits their efforts and makes them look weak. Meanwhile, it's perfectly OK for the GOP to do anything to win, since that's what business is all about in the US. As long as you're not currently in jail, the scummy things you do don't seem to matter as long as you're winning. 

[TheVat]

12 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Is it a wise move for  Biden to limit the field  of potential candidates to black women just because there hasn't been one? Should not the best qualified person be chosen to such an important position, irrespective of gender and ethnicity? If that turns out, after collective deliberation, to be a black woman, then all well and good, but is it a sound way to do this? Is affirmative action not politicizing the process and discriminating against an equally qualified pool of candidates that don't fit that category? 

 

 

(Replied before reading whole thread)

I think some of those slinging AA at the process may not fully understand the principle at work here.  The race and gender, in this context, are visible markers for finding jurists who have a diversity of upbringing and life experience and resultant perspective to bring to the panel of nine.   Like others, I think that diversity should include not only women and PoC, but those who didn't attend Ivy League schools (currently 8 of 9 attended Harvard or Yale), for example.  (And one of the candidates went to a state university -- good for her!)

Most of the past minorities who made it on the Court, traditionally a club of white Protestant men, did so because a POTUS made a conscious selection of someone outside that group.   Starting with Louis Brandeis in the early 20th century.  

In any case, Biden's goal is not to exclude white men but rather to continue the process of having the SCt be more a cross section of the real America.  Growing up black and female does give you a perspective on the law and justice that is quite valuable when you are part of the highest court, that will rule on cases that impact the most vulnerable populations.  In this regard, being black and female is a uniquely powerful qualification in bringing balance to the SCt. When you look at the current Court, you will not have any impression that whites or males are being excluded.  

Edited February 2, 2022 by TheVat
Prune

[swansont]

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It's not a 'GOP concern' per se, Lindsay Graham, for instance doesn't mind, which surprised me. The GOP don't appear to be monolithic on this.

There are people in the GOP who have spoken out, with fake concern. 

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

… Sen. Collins, is more for the principle of selection. She's not a closed-minded Republican.

Evidence to the contrary aside.

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It's easy to say "Well, the GOP did it, so we will."

Perhaps, but who is saying that?

 

3 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Is that a good way to think in the long term, and keep the principled upper hand against the other side? If anything, it demeans the ability of the affirmatively chosen candidate because the goalposts were moved in their favour  for them to get the job.

But who is claiming that goalposts were moved for this candidate? The only ones I see are the ones who have already suggested that a black woman can’t be qualified, without even knowing who that candidate is, or what her qualifications are. i.e. that being black and a woman automatically equates to being unqualified.

 

edit: the goalposts are where they’ve been for quite a while

“Joe Biden isn’t first to prioritize race, gender in picking SCOTUS nominee”

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/28/sean-hannity/joe-biden-isnt-first-prioritize-race-gender-pickin/

[StringJunky]

35 minutes ago, swansont said:

Perhaps, but who is saying that?

I thought iNow said something  directly it about as a riposte to a comment of mine, but I seem to be mistaken. It was earlier in the day. Looking back now, it might have been this comment from Phi, bolded:

Quote

This tactic has worked well for the GOP. Do the dirtiest tricks you can and then pivot when your opponent retaliates in kind. Complain that they lack principles, force them to change their tactics, and then when it's your turn pivot back to the dirty tricks and negative campaigning. There's always voices like yours and MigL's calling for reform, but it's never when the GOP is being dirty. You allow the tit and complain about the tat.

 

Anyway, thanks for all your views. This was just a learning exercise and I'm not really defending a view. The US system is what is, and I agree, reservations aside, that, in practice, a a black, female SC judge will improve representation of the wider US population.

 

Edited February 2, 2022 by StringJunky

[TheVat]

It was a useful topic, not least in that it raises the question of what people mean by that nebulous term "best." On a team, there is no ideal best, just people who are more or less able to fill a particular spot on that team.  

One of the helpful observations here (INow, iirc) was that it is rather Orwellian to take a process that increases inclusion and call it "exclusionary." A bit like calling the appointment of a library acquisitions board exclusionary because they specifically sought candidates with varied reading backgrounds rather than just stuffing the board with fans of bestsellers.  

The RW objections are kind of like, in my example, someone saying "well, most people like bestsellers, so how dare we exclude people, on this particular search, who just read bestsellers?"  

Anyway, if you believe the US Constitution is a living document, then you may need people who have lived in many ways to interpret and apply it.  Personally, I feel the best appointments are the ones who see the SCt as above politics and partisanship and truly set aside their own past politics.  That IS what the highest court is supposed to do, in all deliberations.  They are supposed to owe the POTUS who appointed them NOTHING. That was the specific intent in designing out justice system.

 

[MigL]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

Please define "best" as you used it in this sentence.

The 'best' is one of a set, regardless of selection criterea.
If you choose to limit selection to a subset of that set, then you may not be getting the 'best' selection.

You don't have to be an outsider'' to realize that, combatting the inequality of SC Justice selection, by making color and gender a selection criteria is equivalent to continuing to dig when in the bottom of a hole.
Even though Phi seems to forget about all the complaints most people here had about the last Presidency and his 'useful idiots' party, there have been plenty of complaints about 'tits' ( I'm a leg and bum man, myself ) and increasingly about 'tats', as Democrats try to beat Republicans at their own game.
Is that what you guys really want for your country ?
A descent into a 'cold' civil war ?

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

The 'best' is one of a set, regardless of selection criterea.
If you choose to limit selection to a subset of that set, then you may not be getting the 'best' selection.

You don't have to be an outsider'' to realize that, combatting the inequality of SC Justice selection, by making color and gender a selection criteria is equivalent to continuing to dig when in the bottom of a hole.
Even though Phi seems to forget about all the complaints most people here had about the last Presidency and his 'useful idiots' party, there have been plenty of complaints about 'tits' ( I'm a leg and bum man, myself ) and increasingly about 'tats', as Democrats try to beat Republicans at their own game.
Is that what you guys really want for your country ?
A descent into a 'cold' civil war ?

If you cannot define 'best' then using that as your selection criteria doesn't really accomplish much.