The next Supreme Court judge

[swansont]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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?

Who is making this argument in support of/as justification for Biden’s position? i.e. not trotted out as a strawman

[J.C.MacSwell]

32 minutes ago, zapatos said:

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.

If, for example, you exclude 93% of a population as opposed to half...that's not fundamentally different but I would hope that you don't need it explained how it is substantially and significantly different.

[zapatos]

12 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...but I would hope that you don't need it explained how it is substantially and significantly different.

What I had hoped for was a was a respectful discussion without the off-topic comments meant to suggest a gap in my knowledge. It's getting old around here. We're done.

Edited February 6, 2022 by zapatos

[iNow]

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I would hope that you don't need it explained how it is substantially and significantly different.

I need it explained. Kindly please proceed. 

[StringJunky]

54 minutes ago, swansont said:

Who is making this argument in support of/as justification for Biden’s position? i.e. not trotted out as a strawman

I see no strawman:

iNow 15 hours ago

Quote

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. 

He's listed here things passed by GOP administrations  as a means of rebuttal.  I can only interpret that as "They did it, so we can".

Edited February 6, 2022 by StringJunky

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I see no strawman:

iNow 15 hours ago

He's listed here things passed by GOP administrations  as a means of rebuttal.  I can only interpret that as "They did it, so we can".

That is not a correct interpretation of my point. I looked for similar comments from Carter, Clinton, and Obama but couldn’t find any… So I shared those I DID find and it was coincidental they were all from Republicans.

As I later clarified, my point was how the context of this “debate” seemed absent from the discussion given precedent. Unsure how much more clear I can be. 

13 hours ago, iNow said:

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.”

 

[StringJunky]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

That is not a correct interpretation of my point. I looked for similar comments from Carter, Clinton, and Obama but couldn’t find any… So I shared those I DID find and it was coincidental they were all from Republicans.

As I later clarified, my point was how the context of this “debate” seemed absent from the discussion given precedent. Unsure how much more clear I can be. 

 

OK.  In the absence of Democratic exampless, it did look like you were using precedence as a defence.

[zapatos]

26 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

He's listed here things passed by GOP administrations  as a means of rebuttal.  I can only interpret that as "They did it, so we can".

Your interpretation seems a bit of a stretch to me.

If someone seems to singling out Republicans for being pedophiles who eat babies, and I counter with the rebuttal that Democrats are also pedophiles who eat babies, does that mean the only interpretation is that I support Republicans eating babies? Because perhaps I'm just pointing out that members of BOTH parties eat babies and one party should not be singled out.

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Your interpretation seems a bit of a stretch to me.

If someone seems to singling out Republicans for being pedophiles who eat babies, and I counter with the rebuttal that Democrats are also pedophiles who eat babies, does that mean the only interpretation is that I support Republicans eating babies? Because perhaps I'm just pointing out that members of BOTH parties eat babies and one party should not be singled out.

Then you need to open your mind a bit to possible  other POV's and how they might interpret a particular post. Telepathy is not in the human sensory repertoire AFAIK.

[zapatos]

10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Then you need to open your mind a bit to possible  other POV's and how they might interpret a particular post. 

Did I deny there were other interpretations? It seems I was trying to say there ARE more ways to look at it than just your interpretation.

 

[StringJunky]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

Did I deny there were other interpretations? It seems I was trying to say there ARE more ways to look at it than just your interpretation.

 

I don't think we are looking in the same direction.

[iNow]

Here’s what the feels like:

Me: Look at history here. 

Others: You’re saying this. 

Me: No, that’s not the point I’m trying to make. Here is my point. 

Others: Nope. I’ll tell YOU what YOUR point is. 

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

[TheVat]

I find the argument confusing when it sounds like everyone agrees a black woman would bring a fresh and valuable perspective to the supreme bench, but some feel having Biden say it out loud was naughty.   Presidential administrations are always looking for certain criteria, and they wish to please their voting constituents in the choice of criteria they use.  If you object to this, you really object to representative democracy and the concept of political appointment in its present imperfect form.  There's probably a whole thread there.  

 

[iNow]

More to the point, I COMPLETELY reject the foundational premise here that anything whatsoever is wrong with this. I find arguments that this is a problem totally lacking and wholly without merit, and history completely backs me up here. 

This is how it’s ALWAYS been, and that’s not a “they did it so we should too!” position being espoused.

The real issue is now the rage manufacturing apparatus of the right are stirring up yet another baseless furycane bc people are easier to control when they’re angry, even if the subject of that anger is specious like this is. See also: Benghazi! And “her emails!” and “caravans of foreign rapists at the border!!” 

Edited February 6, 2022 by iNow

[StringJunky]

7 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I find the argument confusing when it sounds like everyone agrees a black woman would bring a fresh and valuable perspective to the supreme bench, but some feel having Biden say it out loud was naughty.   Presidential administrations are always looking for certain criteria, and they wish to please their voting constituents in the choice of criteria they use.  If you object to this, you really object to representative democracy and the concept of political appointment in its present imperfect form.  There's probably a whole thread there.  

 

It's called 'prejudice'. We know the world's messy and full of kinks in practice, but it does no harm to say that "in principle, it is wrong". You are right though, the US system, as practiced, is ultimately at fault.

1 minute ago, iNow said:

This is how it’s ALWAYS been, 

So you are using the past to justify the present? It doesn't matter which administration, or which point in history is used, precedence says it's ok.

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

So you are using the past to justify the present?

No, I’m using the past to reinforce my stance that there is no actual issue here, that it’s a bullshit line of attack and a distraction. 

13 minutes ago, iNow said:

More to the point, I COMPLETELY reject the foundational premise here that anything whatsoever is wrong with this.

I also acknowledge it would be different had he said “must be a white male,” but that’s bc for centuries that’s all there ever was. 

Also:

42 minutes ago, iNow said:

Here’s what the feels like:

Me: Look at history here. 

Others: You’re saying this. 

Me: No, that’s not the point I’m trying to make. Here is my point. 

Others: Nope. I’ll tell YOU what YOUR point is. 

Lather. Rinse. Repeat. 

 

Edited February 6, 2022 by iNow

[zapatos]

19 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's called 'prejudice'. We know the world's messy and full of kinks in practice, but it does no harm to say that "in principle, it is wrong".

It sounds like you are saying 'in principle it is wrong to have 'black' and/or 'woman' as a job requirement from Biden for a spot on SCOTUS". Is that correct? If so, can you please explain why?

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

No, I’m using the past to reinforce my stance that there is no actual issue here, that it’s a bullshit line of attack and a distraction. 

I also acknowledge it would be different had he said “must be a white male,” but that’s bc for centuries that’s all there ever was. 

Also:

 

To you there isn't an issue, maybe, but there clearly is to other reasonable thinking people.

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It sounds like you are saying 'in principle it is wrong to have 'black' and/or 'woman' as a job requirement from Biden for a spot on SCOTUS". Is that correct? If so, can you please explain why?

It doesn't matter what the prescribed candidate criteria are, it's still prejudging the outcome, it's not cricket.

[zapatos]

21 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It doesn't matter what the prescribed candidate criteria are, it's still prejudging the outcome, it's not cricket.

It's not like there is a test or a tournament used to select a justice. If there were I'd agree it is not cricket.

The way the rules were set up the President gets to choose whomever they like, and the only check is that the Senate gets to make sure he is not making a rather egregious mistake.

To suggest the President cannot have any criteria in order to make things 'fair', makes the selection process no more than a lottery where you or I could be selected. I don't understand how a lack of selection criteria for a job is in any way reasonable. I suppose we are again not "looking in the same direction".

[swansont]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

I see no strawman:

iNow 15 hours ago

He's listed here things passed by GOP administrations  as a means of rebuttal.  I can only interpret that as "They did it, so we can".

The original claim was that this was some special event - that nobody else did this before. That’s what being rebutted. 

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

I even asked you to point this out earlier, when it first came up, and you admitted you couldn’t point to anything iNow had said

“it’s okay when we do it” is about the objections to the actions (response) rather than “you did it so we can” being used to justify this action, which has not happened here. 

 

 

 

 

[J.C.MacSwell]

40 minutes ago, zapatos said:

It sounds like you are saying 'in principle it is wrong to have 'black' and/or 'woman' as a job requirement from Biden for a spot on SCOTUS". Is that correct? If so, can you please explain why?

That's what I'm saying, even while agreeing that either or both could fairly be considered advantages in getting the appointment, over some others.

To help put this home, if Biden had specifically excluded indigenous women from consideration I think everyone would see the problem with it.

The fact that he did so, excluded indigenous women (and others) along with overrepresented white males seems to have clouded the fact that this type of discrimination is wrong.

It may not be the worst of identity politics, but it's still wrong.

Edited February 6, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[StringJunky]

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

The original claim was that this was some special event - that nobody else did this before. That’s what being rebutted. 

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

I even asked you to point this out earlier, when it first came up, and you admitted you couldn’t point to anything iNow had said

“it’s okay when we do it” is about the objections to the actions (response) rather than “you did it so we can” being used to justify this action, which has not happened here. 

 

 

 

 

Well, it turned up there.  I must have had a hunch of where it was heading... and here it is, but iNow said he omitted a part because he couldn't find it. I accepted that, but it did skew the perception  of his intent.

Quote

The original claim was that this was some special event - that nobody else did this before. That’s what being rebutted.

My interpretation was, and I think a couple of others, was  that it was being argued that precedence justified the present, in a nut shell, and not that it was a first of its kind that deviated from the  past convention.

Edited February 6, 2022 by StringJunky

[DrmDoc]

Pardon my late entry to this topic and retread of prior opinions possibly expressed more eloquently but, ideally, a high-court jurist in America's system of justice should not only be qualified, competent and capable, but also representative of our nation's people--ideally.  But that hasn't always been true for America and it's not true now.   The majority composition of our nation's highest court is representative of the people who have held power over our system of government since the inception of our nation.  Unfortunately, selecting high-court jurists who are more racially representative of our nation's diversity doesn't necessarily guaranty that they will render opinions reflecting that representation (e.g., Justice Clarence Thomas).  Clarence has consistently sided with those court decisions that tend to undo the progress of fairness towards the treatment of our nation's non-Caucasian citizens.  However, if the ideal is truly what we hope to reflect as a nation, then Biden has very little choice in the matter.  His choice must be a qualified, competent, and fully capable woman of color because no other distinction can contribute the perspective of law that her life experience as a woman of color uniquely provides.

[StringJunky]

54 minutes ago, DrmDoc said:

Pardon my late entry to this topic and retread of prior opinions possibly expressed more eloquently but, ideally, a high-court jurist in America's system of justice should not only be qualified, competent and capable, but also representative of our nation's people--ideally.  But that hasn't always been true for America and it's not true now.   The majority composition of our nation's highest court is representative of the people who have held power over our system of government since the inception of our nation.  Unfortunately, selecting high-court jurists who are more racially representative of our nation's diversity doesn't necessarily guaranty that they will render opinions reflecting that representation (e.g., Justice Clarence Thomas).  Clarence has consistently sided with those court decisions that tend to undo the progress of fairness towards the treatment of our nation's non-Caucasian citizens.  However, if the ideal is truly what we hope to reflect as a nation, then Biden has very little choice in the matter.  His choice must be a qualified, competent, and fully capable woman of color because no other distinction can contribute the perspective of law that her life experience as a woman of color uniquely provides.

I don't think anyone is arguing against the choice, but the prejudgement of the type of candidate to be decided.

Edited February 6, 2022 by StringJunky

[iNow]

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I don't think anyone is arguing against the choice, but the prejudgement of the type of candidate to be decided.

I’d be even more specific. People are upset about process. They acknowledge this is how it always works, but they’re mad at Biden for saying it out loud and being transparent about it. RAGE!!!!