Ketanji Brown Jackson to be first Black woman to sit on Supreme Court - Jordan Peterson has something to say - is he right or is he in the wrong?

[koti]

Jordan Peterson said something along the lines of the Supreme court nomination being racist from the begining because the US administration said they are going to pick a black female and people do not understand what the issue is with affirmative action, he states that not only it is racist because we are ignoring an entire set of people who have appplied for this job but we are actually creating a climate of racism because now as individuals we have to look at people of color who are in these high positions and were going to say - Did you really get that position based on your merit or did you get it because youre black or youre female? And the people involved are going to look at themselves and ask themselves - Did I get that based on merit or did I get it because I'm a black person? Which in result he states, robs every single person involved in this situation.

I'm curious what folks think about this.

[exchemist]

16 minutes ago, koti said:

Jordan Peterson said something along the lines of the Supreme court nomination being racist from the begining because the US administration said they are going to pick a black female and people do not understand what the issue is with affirmative action, he states that not only it is racist because we are ignoring an entire set of people who have appplied for this job but we are actually creating a climate of racism because now as individuals we have to look at people of color who are in these high positions and were going to say - Did you really get that position based on your merit or did you get it because youre black or youre female? And the people involved are going to look at themselves and ask themselves - Did I get that based on merit or did I get it because I'm a black person? Which in result he states, robs every single person involved in this situation.

I'm curious what folks think about this.

You need justices that represent the range of people they are judging. And by any standards this candidate seems better qualified than some of the recent appointees. If she were no good she would not have been confirmed. 

(Peterson is a bit of a tosser, in my opinion.) 

[koti]

13 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You need justices that represent the range of people they are judging. And by any standards this candidate seems better qualified than some of the recent appointees. If she were no good she would not have been confirmed. 

What Peterson is saying is that it was decided prior that a black female will be nominated and that affirmative action is essencially robing all people involved, it seems to me that this is a deeper subject than "you need justices that represent the range of people they are judging"

 

Quote

(Peterson is a bit of a tosser, in my opinion.) 

What do you mean ?

[Bufofrog]

19 minutes ago, koti said:

What Peterson is saying is that it was decided prior that a black female will be nominated and that affirmative action is essencially robing all people involved, it seems to me that this is a deeper subject than "you need justices that represent the range of people they are judging"

Well for almost 200 years that is exactly what white men have done in US, so I am not sweating this particular "injustice".  She is also clearly qualified so, what the hey...

[swansont]

16 minutes ago, koti said:

What Peterson is saying is that it was decided prior that a black female will be nominated and that affirmative action is essencially robing all people involved, it seems to me that this is a deeper subject than "you need justices that represent the range of people they are judging"

The first ~100 justices were white males, and there wasn’t widespread concern about the lack of diversity in considering justices throughout that period, so you’ll excuse me if I’m not impressed by faux outrage from some blowhard.

[exchemist]

24 minutes ago, koti said:

What Peterson is saying is that it was decided prior that a black female will be nominated and that affirmative action is essencially robing all people involved, it seems to me that this is a deeper subject than "you need justices that represent the range of people they are judging"

 

What do you mean ?

It is recognised in a number of jurisdictions, including the UK, that senior judges, because they are appointed towards the end of distinguished legal careers, tend to reflect the social makeup of the legal profession 30 years before. Judges are famous for being a bit out of touch. Yet these people make the law, today, for the whole of society.

It can make sense, therefore, to prefer a candidate -  if, as in this case, a sufficiently able one is available - that widens the range of social representation on the bench. 

(You can look up tosser if you like - it is impolite and chosen for that reason.)

[beecee]

46 minutes ago, koti said:

Jordan Peterson said something along the lines of the Supreme court nomination being racist from the begining because the US administration said they are going to pick a black female and people do not understand what the issue is with affirmative action, he states that not only it is racist because we are ignoring an entire set of people who have appplied for this job but we are actually creating a climate of racism because now as individuals we have to look at people of color who are in these high positions and were going to say - Did you really get that position based on your merit or did you get it because youre black or youre female? And the people involved are going to look at themselves and ask themselves - Did I get that based on merit or did I get it because I'm a black person? Which in result he states, robs every single person involved in this situation.

I'm curious what folks think about this.

And others may ask, a male, white judge whether he got the job on merit or because he was white and male.

On this Peterson character, I see him as dangerous, narcissist, who is out to make as much money as he can by preaching  ‘pseudo-facts’ and conspiracy theories. 

https://www.unikumnett.no/2019/10/12-reasons-why-no-one-should-ever-listen-to-jordan-peterson-ever-again/

On another note, Nothing against President Biden, but certainly would like to hear more from the American vice president, Kamala Harris. just a thought from an old Aussie!

[Peterkin]

What kind of appointee they prefer is always decided by every administration that has an opportunity to make a Supreme Court appointment. The general criteria (ie. militant  transgender feminist; young progressive Hispanic male; mature fiscal conservative female;  old white misogynist fathead) determine the short-listed candidates; which one is most politically viable for confirmation determines the nominee chosen. 

If that's a problem, it's endemic and unavoidable.

[koti]

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

The first ~100 justices were white males, and there wasn’t widespread concern about the lack of diversity in considering justices throughout that period, so you’ll excuse me if I’m not impressed by faux outrage from some blowhard.

The fact that first ~100 justices were white males should not override that merit and competence should be the factors for choosing them an not a pre-defined set of factors like sex/gender/color of one skin. Would you be more impressed by this faux outrage if it came from a black female instead of a white male?

[beecee]

6 minutes ago, koti said:

override that merit and competence should be the factors for choosing them an not a pre-defined set of factors like sex/gender/color of one skin. 

Or obvious politcal  leanings, as reportedly perpetrated by Trump. And of course another consideration would be, and should be, as much as possible, representations of all classes of people in that society, male or female, black or white. 

[koti]

My original post is a transcript I made from the below interview and Jordan Peterson has nothing to do with it:
 

I used a Jordan Peterson lens, thinking that maybe some of us could grab a more objective and broader view of things?

Edited April 9, 2022 by koti

[swansont]

26 minutes ago, koti said:

The fact that first ~100 justices were white males should not override that merit and competence should be the factors for choosing them

The fact that the first ~100 justices were white males means that merit was not the sole factor in their choice. So the concern rings quite hollow.

[koti]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

The fact that the first ~100 justices were white males means that merit was not the sole factor in their choice. So the concern rings quite hollow.

I agree but this is not the point. The point is that curing cancer with burning someone alive is not a good cure, the afro american woman in the video understands this. 

[Peterkin]

As to qualifications, there are qualified judges to fit all possible criteria of gender, race and political leaning, but the people making the selection are in no position to assess the relative legal merits of a candidate; all they have is a record of academic attainments, career path and bench rulings. It's nothing to do with representation or diversity or even the Constitution (which is what it's nominally meant to serve).

The people making the appointment are not jurists; they're politicians. It's a political appointment through a political process. Whether the appointments are affirmative in one term and retrogressive in another, it's always because of their respective political agendas. 

Meanwhile, of course, the judges themselves may not identify with their own gender or skin colour and it's quite possible to be a competent judge without the mirror influencing one's every legal decision.

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, koti said:

I agree but this is not the point. The point is that curing cancer with burning someone alive is not a good cure, the afro american woman in the video understands this. 

Well, it may not be your point, but it’s my point, and bringing up a different point (if that’s what’s in the video) does not rebut this. 

[Ken Fabian]

Peterson will use his keen perception for which hypocrisies of liberals presses conservatives' buttons - showing almost as much contempt by that for those unthinking conservatives as the "hypocritical" progressives -  to relentlessly criticise appointments by US Democrats for being politically motivated but, being a politically partisan voice, will refrain from and deflect criticism of brazenly political appointments by US Republicans; despite not being a US citizen he has chosen his side.

Of course I'm disappointed that any US President or political party feels it is necessary to stack their highest court with partisans or choose candidates for the sake of public perceptions, but that is the way many of them "play the game". I suspect the new Supreme Court judge - not being white and male and watched hawkishly by conservatives - is more likely to be scrupulous than some of the ones there already, such as Trump appointed.

[koti]

29 minutes ago, swansont said:

Well, it may not be your point, but it’s my point, and bringing up a different point (if that’s what’s in the video) does not rebut this. 

Right. I'd say that closing your eyes, covering your ears and yelling "I don't wanna see it!" will not cure cancer either.

Edited April 9, 2022 by koti

[J.C.MacSwell]

Being a Black female is an attribute that can reasonably be considered given the current make up of the SCOTUS.

But excluding all others is racist, plain and simple. Even excluding all whites is racist, but particularly excluding all other non represented races a priori.

If Biden cared more about his appointee's than his misplaced virtue signalling he would have just appointed her as the best available candidate.

 

[iNow]

47 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If Biden cared more about his appointee's than his misplaced virtue signalling he would have just appointed her as the best available candidate.

Now seems like as good a time as any to repeat this post from the last time we spoke of this nomination:

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/126564-the-next-supreme-court-judge/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-1198820

Facts which add this whole thing to the “give me a 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."

Stop listening to the shit stirrers and propagandists. 

[CharonY]

It is also somewhat interesting that the issue of meritocracy rarely (if at all) gets raised when white men are under consideration. 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Being a Black female is an attribute that can reasonably be considered given the current make up of the SCOTUS.

But excluding all others is racist, plain and simple. Even excluding all whites is racist, but particularly excluding all other non represented races a priori.

If Biden cared more about his appointee's than his misplaced virtue signalling he would have just appointed her as the best available candidate.

 

You must be aware that there is only one (1) vacancy. This guarantees that whoever is chosen, everyone else, of every ethnicity, creed, gender, age, proclivity or taste in bowties is excluded.

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You must be aware that there is only one (1) vacancy. This guarantees that whoever is chosen, everyone else, of every ethnicity, creed, gender, age, proclivity or taste in bowties is excluded.

And surely you are aware of the difference.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Being a Black female is an attribute that can reasonably be considered given the current make up of the SCOTUS.

But excluding all others is racist, plain and simple. Even excluding all whites is racist, but particularly excluding all other non represented races a priori.

If Biden cared more about his appointee's than his misplaced virtue signalling he would have just appointed her as the best available candidate.

 

 

[TheVat]

4 hours ago, koti said:

Jordan Peterson said something along the lines of the Supreme court nomination being racist from the begining because the US administration said they are going to pick a black female and people do not understand what the issue is with affirmative action, he states that not only it is racist because we are ignoring an entire set of people who have applied for this job ...

Didn't you make this error before in another thread, and I and others pointed out that this is not affirmative action because it is an APPOINTED POSITION.  No one applies for the position, no one is hired.  The president selects and can do so with an intent to create a court panel that is representing a full range of life experiences and broader demographic that is more like that of the country.  Or, as in the case of Trump, to curry favor with conservative Christians.  If Congress finds the candidate to be not qualified, they can vote to reject.  Senators may also try tearing down the candidate while striking political poses for their constituents and vote against confirmation based on partisan slander... yet this seems to provoke no outcry from the high-minded Mr Peterson.  How odd.

[Peterkin]

11 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

And surely you are aware of the difference.

The difference between excluding men and excluding women? Yes. The difference between excluding blacks and excluding whites? Also yes.

The difference is who complains about it.

[TheVat]

In any case, choosing race as a criterion for a SCOTUS justice is not racist for the simple reason that race, in this context, is also a particular perspective on American jurisprudence and how it has been differentially applied.  Nor would it be sexist to select a woman for her legal perspective on jurisprudence and women. (RBG)  Or a conservative Catholic (Alioto, Barrett) for their insights into how devout religion and legal issues can collide.  And one of Inow's examples was Scalia, who Reagan favored for his being Italian, yet another ethnic group that experienced legal and social discrimination. 

 

It is no different than a city council specifically appointing a homeless person to a task force on reducing homelessness.  We don't tear our hair and cry that it's virtue signaling when we understand the common sense reasons driving it.  We know there will also be people with comfy homes on the task force, too, and this new appointee is bringing some further balance and unique perspectives.