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?

[Peterkin]

58 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I think the thought police thing you seem to have going is particularly cheap

Isn't5 it more of a locomotion, speech and thought police thing?

 The teeshirts, flags, hats, machine-guns and torches offer some clues, as well. 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

I think the only person to have understood the point JC and I are making is Zapatos

Damnit. Just over a day has passed and apparently now I don’t understand again, even though my understanding was explicitly confirmed previously.

 

On 4/18/2022 at 10:15 PM, MigL said:

Exactly ! 
Good job sharpening that pencil.

I could be needless vitriolic and offer a reply like this:

On 4/19/2022 at 4:00 PM, MigL said:

Do try to keep up.
( or maybe read other people's posts, and remember what you yourself wrote )

But I won’t. 

[StringJunky]

When one is going around in circles, it's best to stop.

Edited April 21, 2022 by StringJunky

[beecee]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Because 'most' don't agree, doesn't necessarily mean the majority are in the right. 

Can't argue with that.

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

There is no objective sense of what is right/wrong,  only that which aligns with our respective personal agendas. In this case, there are more posters with similarly aligned personal agendas.

While right/wrong is certainly subjective, it should not be ignored that a victim's views and opinions on right and wrong are far more valid then the perpetrator/s views. And of course as any self respecting criminal and law breaker knows, they wouldn't be openly expressing their own moral standings if pinched for breaking an important law.

On the other hand, in most democratic socieities, right and wrong are objectively defined, by the following.....

(1)The laws of the land.

(2) The authority and courts of the land elected to uphold those laws, and dish out the required fair and reasonable punishment.

(3) And of course the society that has elected that authority, and consequently under that umbrella.

But I have expressed all those views in the justice/punishment. 

 

The Black female contender has been elected, and all that have contributed to this thread have actually agree she is qualified. The difference simply being the prior announcement of that choice. I don't see it as wrong.

As an outsider, and as I have expressed earlier, I see a female and non white choice, as simply needed to cover all contingencies, so to speak.

Edited April 21, 2022 by beecee

[TheVat]

I've observed that when people on any side of a debate start telling someone what they don't understand it tends to escalate to ad hom.  "Not understanding" becomes an implied "you're kinda slow."  If someone really evinces lack of understanding of your point, you can either restate it and hope you made it clearer, or you can move on.  

The latter is my next move WRT this thread.  Cheers.

[Peterkin]

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

When one is going around in circles, it's best to stop.

But then, how will you catch the heffalump? Or weasel?

[J.C.MacSwell]

7 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

But then, how will you catch the heffalump? Or weasel?

Try again some other day. Today is Windsday...

[MigL]

What does any of this have to do with the fact that J Biden said he would pick a black woman for SC Justice ?
He effectively said he would discriminate on the basis of skin color and gender.

So did he lie and consider other factors, or did he discriminate ?
How much longer will you guys twist, contort and do other gymnastics to try to prove J Biden is infallible ?
He is human, and I think he made a small mistake; not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, and I'm sure he'll make many more.
But lets stop pretending he's above criticism because he's so much better than his predecessor.

Lets please stick to the OP.

And really INow, after all the snide comments and insinuations you make about other poster's motives, you call mine needless vitriolic ?
I could reply that I didn't say any of that, as you then do,but I will stand by what I said, and throw one of your lines back at you.
Don't play the butt-hurt snowflake !

[iNow]

25 minutes ago, MigL said:

How much longer will you guys twist, contort and do other gymnastics to try to prove J Biden is infallible ?

How much longer? Fairly sure I never started. 

26 minutes ago, MigL said:

But lets stop pretending he's above criticism because he's so much better than his predecessor.

Here again. Rather hard to stop doing something I never began doing. 

27 minutes ago, MigL said:

I could reply that I didn't say any of that, as you then do,but I will stand by what I said, and throw one of your lines back at you.

Your suggestion here seems to be that I’m a liar who doesn’t stand by what he says. Am I reading you correctly?

[MSC]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Sorry if it's not a long rant

I don't rant; I write a lot because reality is complex and it's a requirement to being truly understood. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work for those with an such an aversion to reading, that they can only call anything substantive, a rant. 

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Let's start with that. Why would you expect us to?

Oh I don't know, reciprocity and the ability to logically counter other people's arguments effectively? It's not my fault you haven't convinced me to care more about the opinions of racists than I do everyone else. Another reason I'd appreciate (but not expect) it, is to show that you have actually read what others have been saying (not just myself), and haven't just been arguing in bad faith. I'm sure you haven't though, but if you addressed people's contributions to this discussion thoroughly; you'd convince me and others of that more than whatever it is you're currently doing, which clearly isn't convincing enough. Maybe if you try all caps and act like you're shouting it all, that might work! 😆 

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Because 'most' don't agree, doesn't necessarily mean the majority are in the right. There is no objective sense of what is right/wrong,  only that which aligns with our respective personal agendas. In this case, there are more posters with similarly aligned personal agendas

I was just stating the fact that most of the people in this discussion, don't agree. For me to have made a logical fallacy, I'd have to have said "the majority cannot be wrong." Which I did not do nor do I believe that. If 99% of the people planet believed the earth was flat, 99% of the people on this planet would just be wrong. 

In regards to the "No objective sense of right/wrong" part, that's not something I believe. I said earlier I'm a moral objectivist. 

The argument for why Biden committed no crime by stating he would nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court, is solid. There is no legal basis for it. I've yet to be convinced that it was morally wrong either. Those two measures are pretty much the only two I care about. I could give less of a shit about the political perspective because that's not my area of expertise. Ethics is.  

Since political perspectives supervene on ethical and moral values, I care more about the latter than the former. The former is just what happens when people weaponise the latter.

4 hours ago, MigL said:

You are pretty full of ... yourself.

Nope, just confident that I've been a valuable contributer toward this discussion, I have been sticking to my guns and I haven't lied to you by saying I agree with you when I just don't. I'm as flawed and imperfect as everyone else here is. If I'm full of anything right now, it's gas. I just ate a bunch of cheese. 

What was it you were saying earlier? About advertising a rental apartment/house as for white males only and as president saying you're going to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court being exactly the same? Have you come up with an argument yet, as to why they are both illegal acts made in violation of the fair housing act of 1968? I believe that was an LBJ Era policy if that helps you look it up.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

How much longer will you guys twist, contort and do other gymnastics to try to prove J Biden is infallible ?
He is human, and I think he made a small mistake; not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, and I'm sure he'll make many more.
But lets stop pretending he's above criticism because he's so much better than his predecessor.

I'm not trying to prove he is infallible. Show me where I have said this? 

Just so it's clearly stated; I don't think Biden is infallible, I don't think he is above criticism. I quite simply, think this particular criticism is baseless and you haven't convinced me it isn't. Yes, to some people, people who are ignorant of the full context, legal and ethical, it looks bad. Doesn't mean it was really a mistake. 

Whether or not I understand your point of view, I still don't have to agree, even if I understand. 

 

 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

And really INow, after all the snide comments and insinuations you make about other poster's motives, you call mine needless vitriolic ?
I could reply that I didn't say any of that, as you then do,but I will stand by what I said, and throw one of your lines back at you.
Don't play the butt-hurt snowflake !

Well you are being needlessly vitriolic. Losing your temper and devolving the thread to name calling because people aren't agreeing with you is the last straw for me. 

 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

He effectively said he would discriminate on the basis of skin color and gender.

Quote

Discriminate: make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, age, or disability.

Where is the prejudice? Whom was treated unjustly? 

And why shouldn't we be concerned about your motivations? I'll say it again, if you talk, walk and think like a racist... at least saying you might just be a racist is an objective thing; other than a totally loaded insult like butt-hurt snowflake which ultimately means nothing.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, MSC said:

 

Where is the prejudice? Whom was treated unjustly? 

 

First and foremost, KJB was. Obviously not by getting chosen, but by her race and gender being used for political purposes. But I guess that can be swept under the rug by anyone that feels she benefited from the overall process. 

[Intoscience]

15 hours ago, zapatos said:

But it seems so obvious to me that if our actions caused harm in the past, then we must take direct action to repair those harms. It is fundamental fairness and I cannot see how anyone would object to that.

Thus my thought is if someone is uncomfortable, it probably has to do with the mechanism employed to rectify the harm done, rather than the fact that the harm was rectified.

I think a fundamental difference between the opposing points of view in this thread is that group 'A' thinks "this was a poor way to fix the problem", and group 'B' thinks "poor way to fix the problem or not, I don't care, we finally got the right result and it was long overdue, and that is more important than any mistakes that might have been made in the way we went about it".

I wouldn't be surprised. But I suspect that no matter which way was chosen there would be critics. 

It is difficult to know ahead of time the best way forward. Thus you pick a path and execute it. And while you and others in this thread object to Biden's announcement during the campaign, his 'pre-announcement'  doesn't seem to be a widespread concern as that is not what others in the press seemed to object to. It seems that most people objected to her past record of court ruling, rather than Biden's pre-announcement.

Therefore, while some may object to that pre-announcement, it seems that it was not a major faux pas. As I said, above, the view of many of us is that the good done far outweighs what some view as a clumsy process.

Firstly, thank you for your approach to this discussion. Though we are in some disagreement I think overall we share similar views.

I would just like to comment on the part in bold. Yes, the good done far outweighs the clumsy process, this I agree on. However, (and its no big deal to me by the way) the way it was handled insinuated using racism for political gain, whether this was true or not, the perception could be that the pre announcement was to gain popularity with a previously oppressed group at the expense of all things being equal. This then could cast a doubt over the choice and singles the person out, for good or bad due to their skin colour and gender, rather than their actual qualities and abilities they may bring to the job.

You are then potentially faced with "KBJ was only chosen cause she's a black female" instead of "KBJ was chosen because there was no other person more qualified and so previously the position has been dominated by white males this was a fair opportunity for a female black lady to take the position, as a step forward towards equality".     

[swansont]

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Yes. Really. I will acknowledge the hyperbole, but this is unquestionably strawman. In fact it's a textbook example.

...

Strawman built. (unless you can show where the claim was made)

"you claim that when he said he would "pick a black female" for SCJ, that wasn't really true, and all sorts of other criteria were considered." 

I never said that "pick a black female" wasn't really true; my position was that this was along with potential candidates' other qualifications already being known. By claiming that this isn't true, what we're left with is the conclusion that black + female were the sole criteria.  

Where is the strawman?  

9 hours ago, MigL said:

What does any of this have to do with the fact that J Biden said he would pick a black woman for SC Justice ?

I don't think anyone is contending this

9 hours ago, MigL said:

He effectively said he would discriminate on the basis of skin color and gender.

So did he lie and consider other factors, or did he discriminate ?

This is a false dilemma, and at the crux of the issue here.

There is nothing about "I will pick a black woman" that says other factors weren't considered. It is an assumption, and one that nobody here has backed up with evidence. 

(edit to add: IOW, you are essentially claiming that you know that Biden did not do anything to vet people before his announcement and there is no way for you to know this, so how can you possibly insist that it is true?

"I will do X" is not the same as "I will do X and only X")

9 hours ago, MigL said:

How much longer will you guys twist, contort and do other gymnastics to try to prove J Biden is infallible ?

I'm waiting for J.C. MacSwell to come by and admonish you for your strawman

[MigL]

9 hours ago, MSC said:

And why shouldn't we be concerned about your motivations? I'll say it again, if you talk, walk and think like a racist... at least saying you might just be a racist is an objective thing; other than a totally loaded insult like butt-hurt snowflake which ultimately means nothing.

Except that INow has been throwing around the "butt-hurt" comment far longer than I have.
To say nothing of the insinuations of racism, from you.

9 hours ago, MSC said:

Discriminate: make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people

Exactly.
 And "prejudice' Means to judge beforehand, since you like definitions.
As in J Biden 'judging beforehand' That his pick would be a black woman.
Is there anything else I need to explain to you ?
Or am I just being vitriolic ?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

I'm waiting for J.C. MacSwell to come by and admonish you for your strawman

I'm sure he would have, or at least come by to tell me to settle down because it's not that big an issue ( he's a lot more sensible than I ), but he lives too far away.

[Peterkin]

The presidential candidate said: "I will appoint a Black woman."

He should have said: "From among the qualified, experienced, ratifiable high court judges willing to take on the task, I will select a Black woman for this appointment."

Optically challenged, fallible man that he is, he assumed that the 'qualified, experienced, ratifiable high court judge willing to take on the task' part was a generally assumed set of prerequisites for a Supreme Court appointment.

Oh, well, too late now! 

Edited April 21, 2022 by Peterkin
keyboard stutter

[MSC]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And "prejudice' Means to judge beforehand, since you like definitions.

In what dictionary?! Prae Judicium means to judge beforehand. While it is the etymological root word of the modern prejudice, they don't mean the same thing. Pre-judge is the modern exact equivalent of prae judicium. 

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Is there anything else I need to explain to you ?
Or am I just being vitriolic ?

Quote

Prejudice: an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge:

- Cambridge dictionary

Maybe you could explain for me this modern dictionary definition says you're full of shit?

12 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

The presidential candidate said: "I will appoint a Black woman."

He should have said: "From among the qualified, experienced, ratifiable high court judges willing to take on the task, I will select a Black woman for this appointment."

Optically challenged, fallible man that he is, he assumed that the 'qualified, experienced, ratifiable high court judge willing to take on the task' part was a generally assumed set of prerequisites for a Supreme Court appointment.

Oh, well, too late now! 

I don't think it matters P. As soon as he said black woman, the right lost their minds.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I'm sure he would have, or at least come by to tell me to settle down because it's not that big an issue ( he's a lot more sensible than I ), but he lives too far away.

So you admit you were strawmanning?

10 hours ago, MSC said:

What was it you were saying earlier? About advertising a rental apartment/house as for white males only and as president saying you're going to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court being exactly the same?

@MigLignoring this are we?

8 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

First and foremost, KJB was. Obviously not by getting chosen, but by her race and gender being used for political purposes. But I guess that can be swept under the rug by anyone that feels she benefited from the overall process. 

No she wasn't used for political purposes. I've yet to see any proof of this.

[zapatos]

8 hours ago, Intoscience said:

the way it was handled insinuated using racism for political gain, whether this was true or not, the perception could be that the pre announcement was to gain popularity with a previously oppressed group at the expense of all things being equal.

I obviously can't know the thoughts of Biden so I'll only speak for myself, but I suspect based on past actions and comments that Biden feels roughly the same way.

The selection of KBJ was racist in neither intent nor fact, even though the selection criteria included being a black woman. The selection included the anticipated benefits of gaining Biden popularity with whites, asians, rich people, poor people, and of course blacks among others. The primary benefit was to finally recognize the equality of a long marginalized group while placing an outstanding liberal judge on the Supreme Court.

Since Biden is unable to control the perceptions of others, and since any methodology of selecting a black woman was likely to cause turmoil anyway, he simply chose the method he felt would work best and went for it, and let the chips fall where they may.

His goal was NOT to minimize the discomfort his selection would have on certain people.

When it is a question of doing the right thing, I believe you do it and simply accept that people who don't like it will find a reason to object. The objections to Biden's method are a natural part of any significant public action and go a long way to help pull people into the future; talking about previously unheard of changes makes them more common and easier to accept.

The concern about how Biden went about this is reminiscent of the reaction to blacks sitting at the white lunch counter, interracial marriage, gay marriage, transgender students in schools sports, women working "men's" jobs, and a long list of other changes. People don't like change and prefer to be eased into it slowly. The first time these things happened the naysayers were up in arms, complaining about how they are going about it, but at this point the uproar would come if you tried to STOP a black person from sitting at a lunch counter.

Personally I'm a fan of ripping the bandage off all at once. It may hurt, and it may even not work on the first try, but it is the right thing to do. We shouldn't deprive people of what is rightfully theirs due to the discomfort of others. 

 

[MSC]

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

obviously can't know the thoughts of Biden so I'll only speak for myself, but I suspect based on past actions and comments that Biden feels roughly the same way.

The selection of KBJ was racist in neither intent nor fact, even though the selection criteria included being a black woman. The selection included the anticipated benefits of gaining Biden popularity with whites, asians, rich people, poor people, and of course blacks among others. The primary benefit was to finally recognize the equality of a long marginalized group while placing an outstanding liberal judge on the Supreme Court.

Since Biden is unable to control the perceptions of others, and since any methodology of selecting a black woman was likely to cause turmoil anyway, he simply chose the method he felt would work best and went for it, and let the chips fall where they may.

His goal was NOT to minimize the discomfort his selection would have on certain people.

When it is a question of doing the right thing, I believe you do it and simply accept that people who don't like it will find a reason to object. The objections to Biden's method are a natural part of any significant public action and go a long way to help pull people into the future; talking about previously unheard of changes makes them more common and easier to accept.

The concern about how Biden went about this is reminiscent of the reaction to blacks sitting at the white lunch counter, interracial marriage, gay marriage, transgender students in schools sports, women working "men's" jobs, and a long list of other changes. People don't like change and prefer to be eased into it slowly. The first time these things happened the naysayers were up in arms, complaining about how they are going about it, but at this point the uproar would come if you tried to STOP a black person from sitting at a lunch counter.

Personally I'm a fan of ripping the bandage off all at once. It may hurt, and it may even not work on the first try, but it is the right thing to do. We shouldn't deprive people of what is rightfully theirs due to the discomfort of others. 

Here here! Not to mention this was the fulfillment of a campaign promise, a campaign Biden won. Apparently we are now expected to believe that being true to your word, is wrong. What a Topsy turvy world we live in.

[MigL]

5 hours ago, MSC said:

Maybe you could explain for me this modern dictionary definition says you're full of shit?

Unlike you I don't need to consult dictionaries to know what a word means, or who's full of shit.
Any way you slice it, it means a bias, or preconceived notion, idea, or opinion about someone/thing.
The active word, in this particular context, being preconceived, as in preannouncing your selection before actually making it.

 

5 hours ago, MSC said:

So you admit you were strawmanning?

No I admitted to being less sensible than JC.
Why don't you look up 'sensible' in the dictionary.

 

5 hours ago, MSC said:

16 hours ago, MSC said:

What was it you were saying earlier? About advertising a rental apartment/house as for white males only and as president saying you're going to nominate a black woman to the Supreme Court being exactly the same?

@MigLignoring this are we?

Not at all.
I see no difference.
Both are filling a vacancy, and preannouncing your selection is a preconceived notion about who you will rent to, or, who you will nominate to the SC.
 

 

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

When it is a question of doing the right thing, I believe you do it and simply accept that people who don't like it will find a reason to object.

He did do the right thing.
 Did he 'improve things by the pre-annoucement about 'picking a black woman', or did he make things slightly worse ?

That is what i have a dim view of; the pre-announcement.
He eventually picked the candidate he wanted ( and we need ), but the pre-announcement of the selection criteria, involving skin color and gender, did not improve things but made things slightly worse and gave people the excuse to gripe about the selection process.

I think the pre-announcement did not need to be made.
If anyone can point out any benefit arising from it, I will stop getting MSC all worked up.

Edited April 21, 2022 by MigL

[MSC]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

think the pre-announcement did not need to be made.
If anyone can point out any benefit arising from it, I will stop getting MSC all worked up

While we are on this subject, isn't a pre-announcement just it's own announcement? When did the work start in the decision to begin searching for a new Supreme Court justice? When he said it would be a black woman, or when Breyer announced he would be retiring? 

 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Unlike you I don't need to consult dictionaries to know what a word means, or who's full of shit.

So unlike me you don't need to cite any sources and we all just need to accept your definitions to everything? Okay, your majesty! Tell me what to believe and I'll never open a book again! I promise, and I'll stop trusting my senses too since you now sense and decide for me master. Yes sir boss, whatever you command! All Hail King MigL! 🤴 

 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

Not at all.
I see no difference.
Both are filling a vacancy, and preannouncing your selection is a preconceived notion about who you will rent to, or, who you will nominate to the SC.

So In your opinion, they are both a violation of the fair housing act of 1968? Am I allowed to link you to that law? Or am I not allowed to lookup laws as well as words in the dictionary anymore? God forbid I ever cite a source again sire!

 

2 hours ago, MigL said:

gave people the excuse to gripe about the selection process

Excuses are like assholes. Everyone has them. His critics were going to find a problem either way! Fact. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Imagine if in 1997 it was announced that it had been decided that Golf's player of the year award was going to go to a black man. Obviously this would seem like a joke and take nothing away from Tiger Woods winning the award.

Now let's imagine if Woods hadn't had quite the dominant year he had, was a top contender but who was best that year was more debatable and the same thing was announced.

I think everyone here could recognize that as being unfair, and especially disrespectful to Woods

So what's the difference that it's politics and not sport?

You can suspect the motives of the GOP, or at least some of there members. You can suspect the motives of the elder J Petersen. But if can't see his point as described in the OP of this thread you might be suffering from some level of the racism that is said to be systemic... perhaps some mutated variant of Trump derangement syndrome...or simply some politically driven mental block that seems to be polarizing far too many people. 

The OP:

On 4/9/2022 at 4:55 PM, 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.

The only thing missing that I think we generally agree on is that being female and being an unrepresented or underrepresented minority can reasonably be considered an attribute given the current makeup of the SCOTUS and the current political climate.

Now Swansont might think the analogy is more like having evaluated all the top players and after recognizing that the top choice has come down to a black player, or down to a few that all are black.

If that was true then it would have simply been a disrespectful announcement (and no less so if the committee or person making the pick claimed they were fulfilling some promise when getting elected), but if that was true the case certainly has not been made. I've seen no sign of Biden trying to make that case...and why would he not if it was true? Why have his handlers not tried to make that case for him if it was indeed what transpired?

[Peterkin]

PGA player of the year is a political appointment? I thought it was elective. 

40 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So what's the difference that it's politics and not sport?

I should think, quite a lot, especially given that Supreme Court judges literally hold the power of life, death and the direction of a nation in their hands. Aside from which....

But, hey, that's a good idea! Why don't they make it it really fair and institute a Jurisprudence Tournament? The judge who takes most gold medals gets to sit on the big bench for a year.

Edited April 21, 2022 by Peterkin

[uncool]

46 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So what's the difference that it's politics and not sport?

The difference between competitive sports and politics is that in competitive sports there’s a clear, objective measure of “better”. Tiger Woods has won because he did better on the golf course.

There is no single objective “better” when it comes to the judiciary. There is no “best judge” that can be objectively determined, merely a pool of judges with better qualifications, among whom the President picks. So by picking a black woman from that pool, the President isn’t deliberately choosing a worse candidate - merely a particular one from among a pool of similarly qualified candidates.

Edited April 21, 2022 by uncool

[MSC]

1 hour ago, uncool said:

The difference between competitive sports and politics is that in competitive sports there’s a clear, objective measure of “better”. Tiger Woods has won because he did better on the golf course.

There is no single objective “better” when it comes to the judiciary. There is no “best judge” that can be objectively determined, merely a pool of judges with better qualifications, among whom the President picks. So by picking a black woman from that pool, the President isn’t deliberately choosing a worse candidate - merely a particular one from among a pool of similarly qualified candidates.

+1 glad to see your name is ironic!

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Imagine if in 1997

Nope. This is real life. Not fantasy time machine land to an irrelevant and unrelated event. 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

But if can't see his point as described in the OP of this thread you might be suffering from some level of the racism that is said to be systemic... perhaps some mutated variant of Trump derangement syndrome...or simply some politically driven mental block that seems to be polarizing far too many people. 

Or your point just isn't a good one. The far more likely possibility. 

Yes, racism is shouting "unfair and disrespectful" because a black woman got a promotion and beforehand somebody quite accurately said "about time". 

Why don't you run a poll with black women and ask them what they feel is disrespectful, then post the results here. 🤔 

18 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

First and foremost, KJB was. Obviously not by getting chosen, but by her race and gender being used for political purposes. But I guess that can be swept under the rug by anyone that feels she benefited from the overall process. 

Did you ask her if she felt she was treated unjustly?

[J.C.MacSwell]

29 minutes ago, MSC said:

 

Why don't you run a poll with black women and ask them what they feel is disrespectful, then post the results here. 🤔 

Obviously I'm not going to do that but here is a poll from prior to the announcement that it will be KJB, so no reflection on her:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/majority-americans-biden-nominees-supreme-court-vacancy-poll/story?id=82553398&cid=social_twitter_abcn

76% of Americans polled thought that all candidates should be considered. The breakdown doesn't give the results for black women specifically but it does mention that 28% of whites were in favour of considering only black women...which indicates minorities were considerably less in favour...funny that...seems like they're a principled lot.

Am I the only one that does not find that surprising?

Given that, even if a majority of black women were in favour overall and happy with the pick, I would expect many, possibly even a majority of them, might consider Biden's approach disrespectful.

1 hour ago, uncool said:

The difference between competitive sports and politics is that in competitive sports there’s a clear, objective measure of “better”. Tiger Woods has won because he did better on the golf course.

There is no single objective “better” when it comes to the judiciary. There is no “best judge” that can be objectively determined, merely a pool of judges with better qualifications, among whom the President picks. So by picking a black woman from that pool, the President isn’t deliberately choosing a worse candidate - merely a particular one from among a pool of similarly qualified candidates.

Regardless of how you measure "better" in politics or sport, respectful and disrespectful can be measured in the same manner.

Edited April 22, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell