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]

He also signalled that it would be based on race for his own political expedience.

Nether of those particular aspects should be admired, even if you like the results.

He racialized the process more than necessary.

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Nether of those particular aspects should be admired

WHO here is advocating for it to be admired? Will you quote where they did this?

34 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

He racialized the process more than necessary.

I see. In your opinion, what would be the necessary amount of racialization?

Edited April 10, 2022 by iNow

[TheVat]

@J.C.MacSwell      So why aren't you also saying he genderized the process more than necessary?  Is it okay to appoint on the basis of life experiences as a woman, but it's racializing if the sought-after life experiences are being Black?  I still don't see why that's worse than, say, "Catholicizing" the selection of Amy Barrett.  (Given the Constitution's stated view on religion and law, I would think Catholicizing would provoke more objections from those taking a stance on a pure process). Barrett was picked for her Catholic moral views on a woman's right to reproductive choices.  It wasn't exactly a state secret. Think of all those jurists who think the Constitution protects a woman's reproductive rights and medical privacy who were excluded!  

[Peterkin]

39 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

We can judge those things with our modern lens because they are modern events to us. The effects of those choices are tangible in our present. Our judgement is pertinent.

When did this "present" era begin? When did the modern moral lens take effect? The day after the odious Kavenough was confirmed? Or the day before nobody had a problem with Barrett. https://www.vox.com/2022/2/19/22934915/supreme-court-justices-not-honest-amy-coney-barrett-notre-dame-abortion-voting-rights

Politicians make political appointments for political reasons. Go, figure!

[swansont]

14 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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.

Can you provide the statement where he “claimed” this?

[StringJunky]

27 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

When did this "present" era begin? When did the modern moral lens take effect? The day after the odious Kavenough was confirmed? Or the day before nobody had a problem with Barrett. https://www.vox.com/2022/2/19/22934915/supreme-court-justices-not-honest-amy-coney-barrett-notre-dame-abortion-voting-rights

Politicians make political appointments for political reasons. Go, figure!

I thought that was quite straight forward, but I'll spell it out out for you: within ones living memory. Beyond that, the boat has sailed. But even then, I realize, at 60 years old, that some of my postions are increasingly antiquated in the eyes of the present youth. Social values are not immortal and unchanging... on multi-decade scales they are fluid and ephemeral.

[swansont]

4 hours ago, koti said:

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.

What dishonesty? This thread is entitled “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?” 

Why is it dishonest to assume we’re discussing what’s in the title? And not something else brought up later (which one might take as a bait-and-switch, which would be a bad-faith argument)

 

[Peterkin]

3 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I thought that was quite straight forward, but I'll spell it out out for you: within ones living memory.

I can remember back when the controversy over Clarence Thomas was not over his race, his sex, his religion or his inexperience, but sexual conduct. The objections and protests are as fluid and ephemeral as the politics behind each appointment. 

[koti]

11 minutes ago, swansont said:

What dishonesty? This thread is entitled “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?” 

Why is it dishonest to assume we’re discussing what’s in the title? And not something else brought up later (which one might take as a bait-and-switch, which would be a bad-faith argument)

 

I lost all desire for discussing this with you.

[Sensei]

20 hours ago, koti said:

I'm curious what folks think about this.

 

..no sane and serious person cares about this nonsense when Ukraine is under attack..

11 minutes ago, koti said:

I lost all desire for discussing this with you.

...as everybody on this forum...

with you..

 

[koti]

4 minutes ago, Sensei said:

 

..no sane and serious person cares about this nonsense when Ukraine is under attack..

I’m really looking forward to you elaborating on this along with publishing more of my personal info on the forum. I really do. 

[Sensei]

10 minutes ago, koti said:

I’m really looking forward to you elaborating on this along with publishing more of my personal info on the forum. I really do. 

...including the current GPS location to within a few meters... ?

https://www.newsweek.pl/polska/spoleczenstwo/intronizacja-jezusa-chrystusa-na-krola-polski-komentarz/e069lcm

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Sensei

[MSC]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

No. I am asking why you categorized this particular action as racism. Thinking a particular race as inferior is the/a definition of racism, but I didn't think that is what Biden did. I just want to know how you view this as racism.

If you think what Biden did was wrong I have no problem with that. And if you had simply said "everyone should be in the pool of candidates or it is wrong" that would have made sense to me. But I don't know why you think it is racism in particular. Not every decision based on race is necessarily "racism".

I don't think it is racism, what I think is making others perceive it that way, is an observation of a triggered inferiority complex. You pick a black female for SC, and all insecure white males take it as an implication that they aren't good enough. That they are in some way inferior to the black female. Even when no one is saying this. 

It's like when children are picking teams for a game. Everyone whom is picked last, believes that the people picked before them, were picked either because of nepotism or the perception they are the stronger players. Therefore to be picked last or not picked at all, feels like being told you are inferior. 

There are some facts that are being ignored here about the SC nomination process and who was left out. 

When Kavanaugh was nominated, he not only beat out all other demographics for the nomination, but people from his own demographic. Basically, other white males were passed over, to pick Kavanaugh. The same is true of KBJ. Her nomination, led to other black and/or female judges being passed over. 

What a lot of people here are overlooking, is the other first KBJ brings to the court by way of career demographic. Prior to being a judge, she was a criminal defense attorney. As far as I am aware, no criminal defense attorneys have ever made it onto SCOTUS. For that alone, she can bring a unique perspective to the SC that has long been absent. Most of the other candidates did not have that kind of legal background. 

I used to be Into the whole (I don't see colour) narrative. But it's bullshit. It's not reality. Unless you are blind/colour blind, you will never not see race. You can see for yourself when someone has skin that is different from yours. Whether they are very different in shade or just a little different in shade. 

The hard fact of the matter is that the voters put Biden into office, after he made a promise to appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court. It could be argued that if the voters did not want this, they would have not voted Biden into office. He in fact has a political mandate to keep that campaign promise. 

If we decide to actually view the court holistically, we might not find ourselves so unjustifiable annoyed that a white male didn't make it onto this position, when there are still plenty of white males on the court. That demographic is already represented. 

Acknowledging differences, taking turns and sharing power within our institutions is in no way racist. Perceiving it as such, is just an incorrect perception based on the fundamental underlying motivations in a truly racist act. 

All that happened, was that it was declared that a black woman would be the next Supreme Court justice. It was not said that a black woman was to be the next justice, because white people suck. 

Yknow some people would take a white male, picking a black woman, as a sign that progress is being made in the fight against racism.

I wonder what people here would think if this had been Obamas nominee? Anybody else here notice that when the black man tries to nominate Supreme Court justices, of any demographic (white males included) they are completely blocked for 8 years.

Every president is going to be criticized by somebody for EVERY decision they make. The accusation of racism, is politically motivated by some and just plain misguided by most. Each decision is going to have justified and unjustified criticism attached. The existence of said unjustified criticism, does not make the original decision unjustified. 

I'll end on a question; is anyone here implying that they cannot believe KBJ is the most qualified judge, in comparison to white male judges? Because if so, the very assumption that it must be white males who are the front runners at all times, is extremely biased. If you were expecting the most appropriate choice based solely on competency, to be a non-black person, you're part of the problem.

I want it said, that I understand how incredibly complicated this bias stuff is, and that most of us here are speaking with the best of intentions. Rather than get into an offensive game of "oh but my black person said this" let's all just assume we all have racial biases that motivate our thoughts on the matter. 

It is a very fine line to toe, between bigotry and paternalism, but to me, Ketanjis appointment is still on that line. Motivations to her nomination aside; she seems like she will be a fine new addition to the higher offices of the judicial branch. All this talk of why she was picked, does in no way diminish her ability to execute the difficult job well. 

The Supreme Court needs justices to sit on it. An individuals motivations toward being on it, ought to be out of duty, not self-elevation. There will be dozens of potential candidates who will never sit on that court that will feel like they were robbed, when the very notion potentially makes them highly unsuitable and mainly in it for themselves. You can't force yourself into being a part of history, and if you do, it will more likely be in infamy rather than fame. 

All the questions in the OP aside; as an individual I am happy for KBJ and proud of her accomplishment. As a human, not as a white male or anyone or anything else. For an individual to achieve what she has, is a huge personal accomplishment and is a testament to her fortitude and perseverance. There are so many obstacles to black woman, that as a white male, I just do not have. Sure, there are obstacles I have that she does not, but it is not difficult for me to say that I do not envy her difference in obstacles at all. On an honest day, she may not envy some of mine either. 

 

 

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I can remember back when the controversy over Clarence Thomas was not over his race, his sex, his religion or his inexperience, but sexual conduct. The objections and protests are as fluid and ephemeral as the politics behind each appointment. 

Yes, it was within our time and the social rules on sexual misconduct have not changed, so ones moral outrage is applicable. Go further back, sexual fidelity wasn't even an issue in making high office appointments and philandering was even admired. JFK comes to mind.

[MSC]

30 minutes ago, swansont said:

What dishonesty? This thread is entitled “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?” 

Why is it dishonest to assume we’re discussing what’s in the title? And not something else brought up later (which one might take as a bait-and-switch, which would be a bad-faith argument)

Yeah this is confusing me too. I read through the previous posts before commenting and I have no idea who we are talking about right now. Jordan Peterson the Canadian Psychologist turned political activist, or someone else who's name happens to be Jordan Peterson? It doesn't really matter to me either way; which is why I didn't really address it. I just ignored the who said it to focus on what was said. 

The irony here, is I'm following one of the few pieces of good advice Jordan Peterson ever gave. "When I'm confronted with an argumemt; I ask myself what is wrong with it, first?"

I mean; the advice is only half complete for quality philosophers. It ought to be to consider an argument from both the standpoint of what is wrong with it and what is right with it.

At the end of the day, Jordan Peterson is a decent psychology professor and most of who he is, flows from that. As a philosopher though, he misunderstands Nietsche whom he quotes often and is not nearly cognizant of epistemic responsibility as he should be to preach about moral philosophy responsibly. He plays a dangerous game out of ignorance and good intentions. A dangerous combination.

[koti]

29 minutes ago, Sensei said:

...including the current GPS location to within a few meters... ?

That’ll not be enough, when you post my PESEL number which you said you have, this will be when the fun starts for you. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by koti

[Peterkin]

26 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, it was within our time and the social rules on sexual misconduct have not changed, so ones moral outrage is applicable.

What outrage? Kavenaugh got the job. And the issue was not infidelity. None of which, of course, is in play in the current situation, so no kind of outrage is applicable. It's just the usual misdirected, randomized rage of the floundering dinosaur. 

[StringJunky]

4 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What outrage? Kavenaugh got the job. And the issue was not infidelity. None of which, of course, is in play in the current situation, so no kind of outrage is applicable. It's just the usual misdirected, randomized rage of the floundering dinosaur. 

When did 'Kavanaugh' look like 'Clarence Thomas'? Look at what I quoted.

[zapatos]

18 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

He excluded, outright, some unrepresented minorities from consideration, based on race.

Thank you.

Phrasing it that way made me think about this more deeply.

I think I would agree with you if there were no context considered. That is, excluding someone based on race, without considering anything else, may very well be racist.

When I consider all other factors that went into the decision though, it seems clear to me that Biden showed no racism when choosing a black woman based on her race.

Other factors include treatment of blacks in America, history of the Supreme Court, racial make up of the country, politics, and many others.

Choosing any minority of course increases the diversity of SCOTUS. Blacks are the largest racial minority so choosing a black person has a larger impact on addressing racial representation than would choosing any racial minority. Given that you can choose only one person for the job it seems reasonable to choose a black woman over other minority races. Given the politics of the country, getting elected was the country's best chance to increase racial diversity, and choosing a black woman made that more likely than pre-selecting, say, a Hmong candidate. 

And finally, what may look racist in seclusion, looks like just another stepping stone toward diversity when looking at the overall trend Democrats have shown when selecting judges for the courts. 

So basically, context matters when considering whether Biden acted in a racist manner, and based on the above reasoning, I don't think Biden's pick was racist.

[MSC]

41 minutes ago, koti said:

That’ll not be enough, when you post my PESEL number which you said you have, this will be when the fun starts for you. 

@SenseiNo doxxing please. I don't know what the laws are where you are, but besides that it just comes off as intimidation and good points raised need not be given with threats. Let the truth speak for itself. Koti is free to speak his views here where the only fear ought to be fear of criticism. Something we all have to deal with in life and on this forum. Silencing people is what dictators do when someone speaks the truth. It's the sort of thing Vladimir Putin does. 

The best way to counter Putin, is by encouraging democratic free speech. That's what he fears the most. You know this Sensei. I get that you're probably also just joking, but the threat of doxxing alone is not cool. Not a good joke to make. 

[Peterkin]

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

When did 'Kavanaugh' look like 'Clarence Thomas'?

When he was looming over a frightened young woman.

SFAIK, JFK was never appointed to the Supreme Court and didn't resemble either of the other men.

[MSC]

Just now, Peterkin said:

When he was looming over a frightened young woman.

And ideologically they are pretty similar also. Kavanaugh considers Thomas to be something of a mentor. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

18 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Thank you.

Phrasing it that way made me think about this more deeply.

I think I would agree with you if there were no context considered. That is, excluding someone based on race, without considering anything else, may very well be racist.

When I consider all other factors that went into the decision though, it seems clear to me that Biden showed no racism when choosing a black woman based on her race.

Other factors include treatment of blacks in America, history of the Supreme Court, racial make up of the country, politics, and many others.

Choosing any minority of course increases the diversity of SCOTUS. Blacks are the largest racial minority so choosing a black person has a larger impact on addressing racial representation than would choosing any racial minority. Given that you can choose only one person for the job it seems reasonable to choose a black woman over other minority races. Given the politics of the country, getting elected was the country's best chance to increase racial diversity, and choosing a black woman made that more likely than pre-selecting, say, a Hmong candidate. 

And finally, what may look racist in seclusion, looks like just another stepping stone toward diversity when looking at the overall trend Democrats have shown when selecting judges for the courts. 

So basically, context matters when considering whether Biden acted in a racist manner, and based on the above reasoning, I don't think Biden's pick was racist.

Thank you and good post.

I agree the pick wasn't racist. My issue is with the process being racialized to an unreasonable extent and for political purposes...to the detriment of racial harmony.

But I'm sure I'll get over it.

Edited April 10, 2022 by J.C.MacSwell

[swansont]

The notion that Biden excluded people from consideration assumes that he made the promise in a sort of vacuum, without knowing what the lay of the land was. Which is ridiculous, IMO. I don’t think any competent candidate would have made such a promise without having done due diligence.

Biden was VPOTUS when Garland was nominated, and lo and behold, Ketanji Brown Jackson was on the shortlist back then. So he already knew of at least one qualified WoC without having done any further investigation of the situation, and it’s likely there were more people that had been identified but not short-listed back in 2016, but who would be deemed worthy of consideration a few years later.  Which also means he could also be aware that e.g. no native American candidates were qualified. 

 

So the scenario could very likely be that he had several names of highly-qualified candidates, and only then narrowed it to WoC by applying the diversity criterion.

[StringJunky]

Why did you bring up Kavanaugh when I was responding about Clarence Thomas? You are attacking something I'm not even talking about. I was talking about how values change over time. Yes, Kavanaugh is relevant, yes Thomas is relevant... because they are part of our time. Go back to JFK's time, and Rolling Stones, Bowie etc, with random fornication, not so much, and was actually deemed ok, and even cool.

Edited April 10, 2022 by StringJunky