The next Supreme Court judge

[Phi for All]

39 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.

Actually, this is probably the thinking that got us where we find ourselves. Perhaps we should be looking at the makeup of the SCOTUS as a whole, rather than as individuals assessed by qualifications for the job. 

42 minutes ago, MigL said:

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.

I don't agree with your realization, or your analogy. This isn't about digging holes, it's about setting a steady course for our country. If you want that course to be inclusive of genders and people of color, it needs to veer sharply from old course.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

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.

You're right, I've forgotten about them completely, almost as if they were never there. But what I objected to was claiming the Dems should take the higher ground only AFTER getting a dirty trick pulled on them by the GOP. You defend a LOT that the US GOP stands for (not everything) until they do something despicable, then expect the Dems to be the bigger people and avoid a civil war.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Is that what you guys really want for your country ?
A descent into a 'cold' civil war ?

There it is! It's all up to the US liberals you complain about so much!

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

There it is! It's all up to the US liberals you complain about so much!

Not complaining about US liberals at all.
Complaining about you guys on this Forum who seem to have come to the conclusion that the best course of action, going forward, for your country is 'an eye for an eye' policy, and to try and beat your opponent by being just like them.
Maybe the US should be just as ruthless as V Putin in order to beat Russia, and bomb indiscriminately.
Maybe we should kill criminals who commit murder.
Maybe we should enslave all Southern Americans who are descendants of slave owners.

Or maybe the 'higher road' is the better way.

And Zap, by definition there can only be one 'best', no matter how you define it.
I suggest you read up on set theory.

[Phi for All]

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

Not complaining about US liberals at all.
Complaining about you guys on this Forum who seem to have come to the conclusion that the best course of action, going forward, for your country is 'an eye for an eye' policy, and to try and beat your opponent by being just like them

Nobody said this was "the best course of action", so stop complaining. I pointed out how you and others seem to hold only one side accountable for taking the high road when it comes to dirty tricks even while admitting that it's the other side that regularly pulls them. 

41 minutes ago, MigL said:

Or maybe the 'higher road' is the better way.

What a liberal thing to say! I hope you can remember this when the US GOP slides back in the mud. 

Personally, I wonder why they haven't floated the idea of putting a businessman on the SCOTUS, since lawyers don't always understand the bottom line. It worked so well for them with two presidents who had little political experience, and justices don't have to have a law degree the way a judge does. 

 

[CharonY]

Looking for the best is an illusion for basically all even slightly complex jobs. One can define a set of suitable candidates, but ultimately figuring out the "best" within that pool is based more on gut guess than anything else.

The real issue here is that traditionally we have the ominous "fit" as an important criterion. I.e. does a given person fit the role and the corporate culture. This has typically resulted in rather monolithic entities as someone who might have the same qualifications but somehow sticks out might result in a poor fit. Even perhaps 20 years back, a woman was seen as a poor fit for an academic career (in Germany). It was considered demanding and competitive and it was assumed that having a child would kill productivity. As a result we had and still have a 3:1 ratio of professors (M/W). In the US and Canada there was at least a discussion about that and the idea to boost gender equality has resulted in more parity. As a result, when I talk to students on either side of the pond, I see a big differences in how they see their ability and likelihood to pursue academic career.

Moreover, increasing female faculty has not reduced overall productivity. And at least from anecdotes I have seen Germany lose quite a few talented female researchers due to the system who went on to have stellar careers overseas (I worked with some of them). In other words, the desire to find the "best" is often just a gatekeeping systems that selects not for the best in terms of abilities, but more in terms of conformity. 

[MigL]

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

I pointed out how you and others seem to hold only one side accountable

Then you must not read many of my posts.
Or maybe it's your 'George W Bush' mentality, that if I don't agree with everything you say, I must be 'on the other side'.
Either with you or against you; If I don't agree with your definition of a liberal, I must be a 'closet' Republican.
( I believe you used the term 'Trumpet', once; very imaginative but wildly inaccurate )

You know what else is a very liberal thing to say ?
Not everything is black and white, pay attention to the nuances of an argument, before resorting to 'labelling' and making 'them' the enemy.
Maybe if you weren't so politicized yourself, you might realize you and your fellow citizens have more that brings you together, than separates you.

But what do I know, I'm Canadian ...

 

59 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Looking for the best is an illusion for basically all even slightly complex jobs.

While I would mostly agree, I think you would also agree we are not looking for the 'best' of the whole American population, only applicants or those who accept the nomination; and then we pick, not the best ( actually ), but the most suitable.
And I would have no problem if J Biden eventually picked a black woman for SCJ; he didn't do very badly with K Harris at all.

But to announce who he would pick ahead of time ?
I think you would agree, gender and color ( don't wanna say race ) should not be a criterion on any job application.
( isn't that what got you in the mess in the first place ? )

[TheVat]

There seems to be some skipping over the fact that one does not APPLY for a job on the supreme court.  It is an appointed position, by the President with the advise and consent of Congress.  

It is a POLITICAL appointment, every time, and thus driven by the choices and objectives of elected officials.  If Americans voted for Biden because he said he would put a professional juggler on the SCt, then he can search only for jugglers and keep his promise.  Congress can affirm or not, depending on how they juggle their constituents and donor base (heh).  Labor laws regarding nondiscrimination on the basis of juggling ability do not apply.

The criteria that would exist for "best" for that niche would be applied to the field of jugglers and might include many who left the circus and went on to law school.  As @CharonY and I earlier noted, there is no single criterion that constitutes a best person and it often comes down to gut feelings.

Where is the outrage for past appointments that specifically looked to include new demographics?  Curiously the RW rage machine is quiet about Louis Brandeis, Thurgood Marshall, Sandra O'Connor, Sonia Sotomayor, et al.  Weird that they accept the methods that made the Court more inclusive UP TO RIGHT NOW, but suddenly when faced with a black woman they all embrace their previously well concealed idealism.

Edited February 3, 2022 by TheVat
Fixt

[swansont]

57 minutes ago, MigL said:

But to announce who he would pick ahead of time ?
I think you would agree, gender and color ( don't wanna say race ) should not be a criterion on any job application.
( isn't that what got you in the mess in the first place ? )

There is no job application here. That’s not a technicality; this is an appointed position. 

 

edit: xpost

[zapatos]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

And Zap, by definition there can only be one 'best', no matter how you define it.

You used the term. Why is it that you won't define it? Is it a secret?

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Complaining about you guys on this Forum who seem to have come to the conclusion that the best course of action, going forward, for your country is 'an eye for an eye' policy, and to try and beat your opponent by being just like them.

Please be specific who you are talking about on this forum? I get tired of the guys on this forum who seem to have come to the conclusion that vague terms and dodging questions is a valid form of debate. It's not acceptable in the science threads, why is it acceptable here?

3 hours ago, MigL said:

I suggest you read up on set theory.

You can really be condescending some times.

[MigL]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Please be specific who you are talking about on this forum?

Very well.
Anyone who thinks  that Democrats should  employ the same methods as Republicans to acheive their ends.
If it wasn't good when they did it, why is it now acceptable ?
And if you think that way, then feel free to include yourself in the group I'm talking about.

I have previously explained that 'best' is not the word I would use ( in response to CharonY ), I would use 'most suitable'. 
And if that should also confuse you, there can only be one that is 'most suitable', while there can be numerous 'suitable', and numerous-1 that are 'more suitable'.
Am I being condescending again ?
Maybe I'm slightly pissed at the way Phi always mischaracterizes me, and I'm unjustly taking it out on you.
I may be Canadian, but I'm still only human.

I fully understand the difference between applying for a job, and being 'appointed' to a job.
But if you eliminate specific groups of people from consideration, the difference matters less and less with every group you eliminate.
If J Biden had said "I am taking applications for VP, and the qualifications are that you must be a black woman, former DA in San Fran, first name begins with K, last ends with S, and AMALA HARRI in between." You have made a job application into a job appointment.
And I still don't think gender and color are criteria to be considered for an appointment or an application.
If anyone does, even if trying to rectify an inequitable current situation, then they are using the same methods as the people who created the inequitable situation.
Now go back up to the beginning of this post and check to see if that makes you part of the group I'm talking about ...

Edited February 3, 2022 by MigL

[zapatos]

57 minutes ago, MigL said:

Anyone who thinks  that Democrats should  employ the same methods as Republicans to acheive their ends.

Yeah, that was real specific. 

58 minutes ago, MigL said:

Am I being condescending again ?

We're done here.

[iNow]

30 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Yeah, that was real specific. 

I said something about not unilaterally disarming. I suppose if you squint really hard and add some filters to ensure the most negative connotation possible, one might be able to read that as me, “coming to the conclusion that the best course of action, going forward, for your country is 'an eye for an eye' policy, and to try and beat your opponent by being just like them.”  🤷‍♂️ 

[iNow]

On 2/2/2022 at 1:05 PM, zapatos said:

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

Maybe we can go with who can handwrite the entire text of the constitution the fastest using a quill in the shape of a pickle and mayonnaise for ink, or who can sculpt a gavel out of a potato accurate to the nearest micron. 

I’m genuinely struggling to think of objective measures to answer such a question about defining “best” since the entirety of a justices role in the SCOTUS is to interpret the most difficult nuances. 

Maybe Melania Trump can help. “Be best!”

[StringJunky]

13 hours ago, iNow said:

Maybe we can go with who can handwrite the entire text of the constitution the fastest using a quill in the shape of a pickle and mayonnaise for ink, or who can sculpt a gavel out of a potato accurate to the nearest micron. 

I’m genuinely struggling to think of objective measures to answer such a question about defining “best” since the entirety of a justices role in the SCOTUS is to interpret the most difficult nuances. 

Maybe Melania Trump can help. “Be best!”

Probably the best metric is to look at the combined legal skillset of the incumbents, and see what particular skills/knowledge  are missing or in short supply. It should be a given that a candidate has broad experience/overview of the legal landscape, besides having some depth in a particular area. 

Edited February 4, 2022 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Probably the best metric is to look at the combined legal skillset of the incumbents, and see what particular skills/knowledge  are missing or in short supply.. 

Well the issue is that these judges are ultimately supposed to interpret the US constitution, so fundamentally the required skillset is somewhat narrow. Moreover, it seems to me that in this area, there are few hard skills that one could scale them on. Due to the nature of the court, the personal background is likely going to play a significant role. Looking at e.g. Ruth Bader Ginsburg here. I.e. skill-wise there is little to distinguish them, but much of the vetting is based on personality. Kavanaugh was under fire after his partisan outburst during the hearings, where some of his legal supporters thought that this is unbecoming of a supreme court judge.

[zapatos]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Probably the best metric is to look at the combined legal skillset of the incumbents, and see what particular skills/knowledge  are missing or in short supply. It should be a given that a candidate has broad experience/overview of the legal landscape, besides having some depth in a particular area. 

I think judicial philosophy is also critical. For example strict constructionist vs originalism vs judicial activism.

In addition, I think 'depth in a particular area' goes beyond legal depth, and should include human experiences. Poverty, racism, mental health, child abuse, sexism, disabilities, etc.; they all bring a perspective that helps bring a well-rounded and thoughtful insight to justice. For example, if you've only seen America from a white perspective it is difficult to recognize the racism that is built into our laws.

[TheVat]

Plus one.

The caution is not to have demographics distract from a candidate's possible deficiencies.  E.g. Uber conservative, Ayn Rand loving,  Clarence Thomas would be the poster child of ideologically induced blindness.  And nonparticipation (he is well known for going more than a decade without asking a single question during oral arguments).  Offered as a successor to Thurgood Marshall, the contrast could not be more glaring.  And the activities of his wife, leading attempted disloyalty purges of anyone questioning Trump, as well as other far right smear campaigns, would seem to cast a shadow on his attempts to project impartiality.  

 

[zapatos]

6 minutes ago, TheVat said:

 

The caution is not to have demographics distract from a candidate's possible deficiencies.  E.g. Uber conservative, Ayn Rand loving,  Clarence Thomas would be the poster child of ideologically induced blindness.  And nonparticipation (he is well known for going more than a decade without asking a single question during oral arguments).  Offered as a successor to Thurgood Marshall, the contrast could not be more glaring.  And the activities of his wife, leading attempted disloyalty purges of anyone questioning Trump, as well as other far right smear campaigns, would seem to cast a shadow on his attempts to project impartiality.  

 

Which brings up another good point, and one that seems to weigh on the mind of John Roberts; the power of the Supreme Court comes from its acceptance by the people. The Supreme Court has no power to enforce its decisions. If people don't believe the Supreme Court is a valid institution worthy of respect then they begin to lose the ability to be the final arbiter of constitutional issues. 

Quote

Marshall had initially opposed Jackson's election to the presidency, and in the Cherokee Indians case, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), Marshall infuriated Jackson by insisting that Georgia laws that purported to seize Cherokee lands on which gold had been found violated federal treaties. Jackson is famous for having responded: "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." 

https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/antebellum/history2.html

[J.C.MacSwell]

I don't see a problem with appointing a black female judge to the SCOTUS. I don't even see a problem with considering someone being from an underrepresented/unrepresented group to hold that as an advantage in the choice.

But to announce that you intend to pick from only black females as a limiting criterion is simply wrong IMO, and also kind of dumb, also IMO.  

He should have just made his choice, and announced her as the best candidate available. Why burden her with a "best available Black Female" label? Why announce to other minorities (or for that matter anyone) that regardless of their qualifications they were not wanted, and ineligible, for a job they may in fact be most qualified for, and have worked hard to become qualified for?

Why, but for identity politics and for the purposes of virtue signalling would he announce that?  

If they, Biden and the Senate, pick one with anything close to the level of integrity of Susan Collins they'll be doing well. 

...and as Collins pointed out, a black female should be a welcome addition to the SCOTUS..but Biden has handled it poorly.

Edited February 5, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[zapatos]

22 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why, but for identity politics and for the purposes of virtue signalling would he announce that?  

 

Perhaps he prioritized diversity over other qualifications, and chose a black over other minorities as a means to support a group and specific individuals that have traditionally supported him and his party.

Not too dissimilar from a Republican who prioritizes Right to Life or gun rights, and announces he will only choose from candidates with an appropriate track record, as a way to support a group and specific individuals who have traditionally supported him and his party. This is also announcing to other candidates (or for that matter anyone) that regardless of their qualifications they were not wanted, and ineligible, for a job they may in fact be most qualified for, and have worked hard to become qualified for.

Do you believe there is a fundamental difference between the Republicans and Democrats who announce ahead of time qualifications they will consider?

[iNow]

Facts which add this whole thing to the “give me a fucking break” category for me:

Dwight Eisenhower expressly sought to appoint a Catholic to the seat of retiring Justice Sherman Minton in 1956 and then named William Brennan (yep, a Catholic) to the bench.

Recordings from Lyndon Johnson show he deliberately chose to make history with the appointment of the first Black justice and later nominated Thurgood Marshall.

Ronald Reagan, October 14, 1980. He said “one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration will be filled” by a woman.

Reagan also chose Antonin Scalia for the court specifically because he was “of Italian extraction” as confirmed by several of his direct staff.

In 1991, George H.W. Bush pledged to replace retiring Justice Marshall with another Black jurist and later nominated Clarence Thomas (yep, a black man just like he said).

Donald Trump, September 19, 2020 (a day after Justice Ginsburg died). Donald Trump declared he would limit his search for her replacement to ONLY female candidates. "It will be a woman … we have numerous women on the list."

STFU already and stop listening to the propagandists. 

[MigL]

23 minutes ago INow said 

"They did it, so we'll do it too."

 

In a little while he'll deny he said it, or it was taken out of context, or it's a real stretch to get there from what he said.

Give me a fucking break is right !

 

 

Nice come back.
When your argument can't be backed up, you argue with rep points ?

After having claimed you did not say that, you go and post the exact thing I pointed out you were doing.
You seem to act very much like your  Republican fellow citizens you hate so much.

Edited February 6, 2022 by MigL

[iNow]

Just making sure everyone was clear on precedent. Please do carry on attacking me for being aware of it and willing to share it for the important context it offers to the current “debate.”

Edited February 6, 2022 by iNow

[swansont]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

23 minutes ago INow said 

"They did it, so we'll do it too."

 

In a little while he'll deny he said it, or it was taken out of context, or it's a real stretch to get there from what he said.

I’d like you to quote where they said that, seeing as you put it in quotes.

[J.C.MacSwell]

14 hours ago, zapatos said:

 

Do you believe there is a fundamental difference between the Republicans and Democrats who announce ahead of time qualifications they will consider?

When the qualifications are stated as excluding all others from consideration, and include both sex and race to the degree in this case, I find it substantially and significantly different.

If he had stated it as having someone particular in mind that would not be the same; but Implicit in his announcement, whether he realizes it or not is that a black female would not get chosen otherwise... that he could find a better candidate if he didn't limit himself in this manner.

He should have just made his choice. If he felt it was important enough to choose a black female he should have just done it without announcing that sex and race was paramount. I'm sure whoever he chooses will have other attributes and qualifications that deserve focus.

Has any reporter asked him why indigenous females were excluded from consideration?

As for the argument that the Republicans are the same, or worse, I really don't blame anyone for making that argument...I mean what else do you have?

Edited February 6, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

When the qualifications are stated as excluding all others from consideration, and include both sex and race to the degree in this case, I find it substantially and significantly different.

So the substantial and significant difference is because a Democrat used race AND sex, whereas (per iNow's examples) Republicans have only stated race OR sex? Just want to make sure I'm clear on your position.