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?

[J.C.MacSwell]

18 minutes ago, TheVat said:

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.

So you think it was a good thing for Biden to go about it the way he did? If you think she was the best candidate available all things considered; Do you think this was fair to KBJ? 

44 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

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.

What's the difference, to you, of excluding indigenous women, and not excluding them, from any chance of consideration?

[Peterkin]

17 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What's the difference, to you, of excluding indigenous women, and not excluding them, from any chance of consideration?

Numbers. Not a lot to choose from. Something to do with the US education system and tuition fees, I would guess. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Numbers. Not a lot to choose from. Something to do with the US education system and tuition fees, I would guess. 

That makes it unlikely. It does not justify excluding each and every one of them on the basis of race.

[Peterkin]

Neither of them excluded on the basis of race. They just haven't been federal judges long enough. Once the third one - a Biden nominee, incidentally - is confirmed, the two older women will have a shot at the next opening. https://www.forbes.com/sites/erinspencer1/2021/05/13/just-two-native-american-federal-judges-serve-king-may-be-the-third/?sh=37b0d8ee5815

[J.C.MacSwell]

10 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Neither of them excluded on the basis of race. They just haven't been federal judges long enough. Once the third one - a Biden nominee, incidentally - is confirmed, the two older women will have a shot at the next opening. https://www.forbes.com/sites/erinspencer1/2021/05/13/just-two-native-american-federal-judges-serve-king-may-be-the-third/?sh=37b0d8ee5815

No. They were excluded on the basis of race. You can point to a number of other reasons to not choose them, good or bad, right or wrong, but Biden claimed them ineligible.

No other reasons were considered. Why would they be? They were deemed by Biden to be ineligible based on their race.

Edited April 10, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No other reasons were considered. Why would they be? They were deemed by Biden to be ineligible based on their race.

You seem very convinced.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

You seem very convinced.

Why are you not? Do you think Biden would have changed his mind if one of them was sufficiently qualified, after announcing the race and gender he was looking for?

[iNow]

55 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why are you not? Do you think Biden would have changed his mind if one of them was sufficiently qualified, after announcing the race and gender he was looking for?

I’m open to the possibility, as should you be, especially since neither of us can speak factually about what might happen in other peoples minds if they were exposed to hypothetical scenarios. 

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

Can you please explain why this is racist?

It would be racist if he believed whites were inferior based on their color, or if excluding people other than black women for this nomination was unjust. I don't see that being the case here.

I'm curious how you perceive this situation.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Why are you not?

Coz it's distractionary BS.

 

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do you think Biden would have changed his mind if one of them was sufficiently qualified, after announcing the race and gender he was looking for?

I don't know and it doesn't signify. A political agenda calls for a particular set of criteria, from the available pool of candidates. Everything that doesn't fit into those criteria is automatically excluded. That means nobody is excluded specifically for any particular reason; they're just all included in the general exclusion. You can't get a whole lot more inclusive than " everything else".  

Edited April 10, 2022 by Peterkin
and

[CharonY]

If a white judge was selected, one could make the inverse argument that the system excludes minority judges. After all a random selection among the majority favours the majority, as evidenced by the non-representative selection of judges over the history of the US. So following that system we would be likely in for either a white male judge, and with a lower likelihood a female white judge. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

Can you please explain why this is racist?

It would be racist if he believed whites were inferior based on their color, or if excluding people other than black women for this nomination was unjust. I don't see that being the case here.

I'm curious how you perceive this situation.

Are you saying exclusion of every race but one is okay? It's okay as long as he doesn't think they are inferior?

You guys are tripping over yourselves on this. You might ask yourselves why.

Why make it more about race than it has to be? There are just 9 positions on the SCOTUS. You can't make it perfectly reflect American Society.

There is nothing wrong with choosing a black woman for SCOTUS. There is nothing wrong with choosing one as your running mate.

There is something wrong with Biden going out with the blinders on and choosing just on race and gender. Especially when some minorities remain unrepresented and especially by announcing it first, not even knowing who the candidates might be. 

Am I the only one here that thinks a black female could in fact be the best candidate? 

He should have just nominated KBJ as the best candidate available. It's his fault, not hers, that he didn't.

[swansont]

10 hours 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.

And of course you can point to this concern over previous candidates, where others were excluded from consideration.

10 hours 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.

 

Can you establish that this was virtue signaling? Who is the best available candidate?

[koti]

3 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You guys are tripping over yourselves on this. You might ask yourselves why.

I find it scary. It’s one thing when a bunch of undereducated morons support Trump with dangerous views and actions but when the educated „elite” closes its eyes and ears while doing backflips to justify something which is not possible to justify, it’s a whole different ball game.

[swansont]

27 minutes ago, koti said:

I find it scary. It’s one thing when a bunch of undereducated morons support Trump with dangerous views and actions but when the educated „elite” closes its eyes and ears while doing backflips to justify something which is not possible to justify, it’s a whole different ball game.

If you can point to a list of objective qualifications for SCOTUS, that would go a long way toward establishing that it’s not possible to justify this decision.

edit: I’ll save you some time - you won’t find such a list in the Constitution  

[koti]

18 minutes ago, swansont said:

If you can point to a list of objective qualifications for SCOTUS, that would go a long way toward establishing that it’s not possible to justify this decision.

edit: I’ll save you some time - you won’t find such a list in the Constitution  

The point of this thread are concerns that a young black woman expresses towards the affirmative action involved in nominating another black woman to supre court. Shes concerned that all people involved are essencially striped og their dignity through the actions taken. With all due respect swansont but you don’t give a s..t about these points she’s raising which I’m showing here so don’t expect me to follow your deviation from the core subject here. 

[exchemist]

9 minutes ago, koti said:

The point of this thread are concerns that a young black woman expresses towards the affirmative action involved in nominating another black woman to supre court. Shes concerned that all people involved are essencially striped og their dignity through the actions taken. With all due respect swansont but you don’t give a s..t about these points she’s raising which I’m showing here so don’t expect me to follow your deviation from the core subject here. 

I must say I find that argument disingenuous bullshit. I and several others have given good reasons why it makes sense for the make-up of the highest court to have representation from a variety of the social groups whose laws they have to interpret. 

There is no suggestion by anybody serious that a professionally inadequate candidate has been selected, because of skin colour. Not even Petersen alleges that this candidate is not fully competent to do the job. And the US Senate has agreed she is competent. So it is pure hysteria to suggest  anyone is being "stripped of their dignity" by this process. What rot. 

[swansont]

54 minutes ago, koti said:

The point of this thread are concerns that a young black woman expresses towards the affirmative action involved in nominating another black woman to supre court.

Jordan Peterson is a young black woman? I apologize; I was thinking of a different Jordan Peterson. You did refer to her as a he, though.

I don’t think it was affirmative action at all; please establish that it was.

[StringJunky]

6 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Are you saying exclusion of every race but one is okay? It's okay as long as he doesn't think they are inferior?

You guys are tripping over yourselves on this. You might ask yourselves why.

Why make it more about race than it has to be? There are just 9 positions on the SCOTUS. You can't make it perfectly reflect American Society.

There is nothing wrong with choosing a black woman for SCOTUS. There is nothing wrong with choosing one as your running mate.

There is something wrong with Biden going out with the blinders on and choosing just on race and gender. Especially when some minorities remain unrepresented and especially by announcing it first, not even knowing who the candidates might be. 

Am I the only one here that thinks a black female could in fact be the best candidate? 

He should have just nominated KBJ as the best candidate available. It's his fault, not hers, that he didn't.

In an ideal society it would be colour-blind, gender-blind etc and the apparent ratios of representation  within the SC wouldn't matter, but historically, ethnically-based, gender-based selection bias has been the norm. It has always been and always will be. The difference this time is that the selection is geared towards those groups who appear to be under-represented, rather than the historical pattern. Every group should have a voice and representative on the highest offices of the land to the best available ability. The only really fair way to do it is Lotto-style, but given the extremely small number of 'balls', the outcome will likely not proportionally reflect that of society. People will only think things are fair when the opportunity and representation is equal or proportional. 

Pragmatically, he should have just have just shut his mouth and picked from his preferred demographic. By doing so he was virtue-signalling to his base and probably pissed off the excluded groups, giving ammunition to the opposition. Not a smart move really.

All in all, it's not KBJ's fault, congratulations to her, and another part of society are happier.

Edited April 10, 2022 by StringJunky

[koti]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Jordan Peterson is a young black woman? I apologize; I was thinking of a different Jordan Peterson. You did refer to her as a he, though.

I don’t think it was affirmative action at all; please establish that it was.

Gotcha. I don’t know why I expected more than the ususal dishonesty when dealing with political subjects on this forum, I’m gullible in this case.

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I must say I find that argument disingenuous bullshit. I and several others have given good reasons why it makes sense for the make-up of the highest court to have representation from a variety of the social groups whose laws they have to interpret. 

There is no suggestion by anybody serious that a professionally inadequate candidate has been selected, because of skin colour. Not even Petersen alleges that this candidate is not fully competent to do the job. And the US Senate has agreed she is competent. So it is pure hysteria to suggest  anyone is being "stripped of their dignity" by this process. What rot. 

Yes. Several others. Who has disagreed with that point? Being from an unrepresented minority can reasonably be considered an attribute for consideration.

 

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

In an ideal society it would be colour-blind, gender-blind etc and the apparent ratios of representation  within the SC wouldn't matter, but historically, ethnically-based, gender-biased selection-bias has been the norm. It has always been and always will be. The difference this time is that the selection is geared towards those groups who appear to be under-represented, rather than the historical pattern. Every group should have a voice and representative on the highest offices of the land to the best available ability. The only really fair way to do it is Lotto-style, but given the extremely small number of 'balls', the outcome will likely not proportionally reflect that of society. People will only think things are fair when the opportunity and representation is equal or proportional. 

Toward one group that was underrepresented. A group that is representative of approx 6% of the population. A group that now has been signalled what exactly? That no matter how good they are, no matter how hard they try, they should expect to wait a long time to be considered again? Because of their race?

 

22 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Pragmatically, he should have just have just shut his mouth and picked from his preferred demographic. By doing so he was virtue-signalling to his base and probably pissed off the excluded groups, giving ammunition to the opposition. Not a smart move really.

Exactly. +1. 

 

27 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

 

All in all, it's not KBJ's fault, congratulations to he..

Absolutely.

27 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

... and another part of society are happier.

Yes Democrats. They won't even see how this works against them.

[StringJunky]

32 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Toward one group that was underrepresented. A group that is representative of approx 6% of the population. A group that now has been signalled what exactly? That no matter how good they are, no matter how hard they try, they should expect to wait a long time to be considered again? Because of their race?

That they are represented. Even when KJB retires and there are no black female SC judges sitting, they have historically been represented, and can be content. History matters, it guides the future. Another time in the future  it can be another group's turn to be represented. 

Quote

Yes Democrats. They won't even see how this works against them.

I meant black females.

[J.C.MacSwell]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

 

I meant black females.

Wouldn't they be happier if KBJ had just been chosen? It seems Jordan Petersen (the younger one, if that's her real name) would have been.

Wouldn't KBJ have been happier if simply chosen?

[StringJunky]

5 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Wouldn't they be happier if KBJ had just been chosen? It seems Jordan Petersen (the younger one, if that's her real name) would have been.

Wouldn't KBJ have been happier if simply chosen?

Like I said, he should have kept schtum. It was an political act of overt virtual signalling to his base that he said something in advance. The fault is entirely his.

Edited April 10, 2022 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Like I said, he should have kept schtum. It was an political act of overt virtual signalling to his base that he said something in advance. The fault is entirely his.

I know you get it. Can you explain why others don't seem to?