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?

[MSC]

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

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, random fornication, not so much, and was deemed ok, and even cool.

Man, dyou ever feel like you should have been born earlier? 😆 

[StringJunky]

11 minutes ago, MSC said:

Man, dyou ever feel like you should have been born earlier? 😆 

They aren't showing off about it now though. This is one of those cases where  society has moved on and some are still alive. They could theoretically still get publicly pilloried. 

Edited April 10, 2022 by StringJunky

[MSC]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

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

It is up to the executive branch to ultimately do what is best for everyone in the USA. If he hadn't kept to this promise, the narrative from the right would just be focused on how he broke a promise and would probably go so far as to accuse Biden of racism for not doing the very thing he is now being called racist for doing. This is why I feel bad for Biden and KBJ, damned if they do, damned if they don't. 

The real question we should ultimately be evaluating; Is KBJ a good choice for the USA as a whole? I say yes. For very non race related reasons. Because she has spent times as a public defender. Something that has been absent from the makeup of the Supreme Court. It's like an entire aspect of the law has long been neglected a voice on the highest court. Public defenders are overworked, under paid, under funded with a judicial system completely stacked against them. If you can make it through that shitstorm, and be qualified enough to be on the SC, why shouldn't you be given the nomination other motives aside?

[MigL]

I'm sure everyone is waiting with baited breath for my opinion ...

I'm sure KBJ will be an excellent Justice, and is extremely well quaified, but SCJustices are not supposed to represent specific groups of people; they are supposed to represent ALL people.
And while a black woman is a welcome addition, why was there a need for J Biden, to announce beforehand, that the selection criteria would be based on skin tone ( not race ) and gender ? 
Bad optics.

Unlike some of the others, I don't find it very offensive that this was  a color/gender , for appearance, motivated selection.
What is offensive, to me anyway, is the selection based on political leaning of the candidate. Whoever is in power tries to change the make-up of the SC, not necessarily for the good of the country, but for their own political party.
As far as I'm concerned, the SC should not be politicized.

Ken said it on the first page of this discussion ...

23 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

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.

Yes, of couse it's been done for a couple of hundred years, but tell me, how's that working out for you guys ?
Maybe it's time to try a new approach ?

 

And I'm still disappointed that some people choose to make their argument with demerit points, rather than reasoned thinking.

Edited April 10, 2022 by MigL

[StringJunky]

52 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm sure everyone is waiting with baited breath for my opinion ...

I'm sure KBJ will be an excellent Justice, and is extremely well quaified, but SCJustices are not supposed to represent specific groups of people; they are supposed to represent ALL people.

It's the set of justices that represents the needs of the people, with each particular justice bringing a viewpoint/speciality  from a particular demographic. One cannot do it all. The important thing is that each trusts the veracity of their colleagues contributions, so that they can make considered judgements. The political element is a serious flaw and probably negatively influences the free exchange of expertise between them.

Edited April 10, 2022 by StringJunky

[MSC]

16 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's the set of justices that represents the needs of the people, with each particular justice bringing a viewpoint/speciality  from a particular demographic. One cannot do it all. The important thing is that each trusts the veracity of their colleagues contributions, so that they can make considered judgements. The political element is a serious flaw and probably negatively influences the free exchange of expertise between them.

Which isn't the fault of the justices to be fair. The thing is, I prefer the idea of term limits and more public input on whom can be nominated as a Supreme Court Justice. Maybe the Supreme Court needs a rolling Supreme Jury? 

I don't know if there is any way to really fix the problems with all three branches of government that will leave no one feeling fucked over tbh. In the end, we can share our opinions and views, but we don't currently have much of a say in the matter. I'm just glad the seats are being filled instead of a constant stream of nominee rejection leaving seats open.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

And while a black woman is a welcome addition, why was there a need for J Biden, to announce beforehand, that the selection criteria would be based on skin tone ( not race ) and gender ? 
Bad optics.

As I pointed out earlier, this is not an accurate account of the situation, and the “bad optics” is a bad faith talking point from the right, from the “be outraged, make up a reason why” playbook.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I'm sure KBJ will be an excellent Justice, and is extremely well quaified, but SCJustices are not supposed to represent specific groups of people; they are supposed to represent ALL people.

57 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's the set of justices that represents the needs of the people, with each particular justice bringing a viewpoint/speciality  from a particular demographic. One cannot do it all.

While both statements are correct in any democratic society, we are all (even judges) still human, with human frailties and biases. Therefor justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done, for any white male human, female white human, or a human of colour. I'm sure humans of sufficient intelligence, qualifications, and minimum frailties and biases, can be found in all those specific groups.

ps: Why do we call black people coloured? When in actual fact, scientifically speaking,  black is the absence of colour, while white is a combination of seven vibgyor ? 😉

[Peterkin]

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, Kavanaugh is relevant, yes Thomas is relevant... because they are part of our time.

Plus, they're Supreme Court judges, which is a big plus, relevance-wise.

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

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

What for? They not relevant in any sense.

2 hours ago, MigL said:

but SCJustices are not supposed to represent specific groups of people; they are supposed to represent ALL people.

No, they're not representing any people. Elected office-holders are supposed to to do that. Supreme courts are supposed to serve the constitution and law of the land, without fear or favour.

18 minutes ago, beecee said:

Why do we call black people coloured? When in actual fact, scientifically speaking,  black is the absence of colour, while white is a combination of seven vibgyor ?

Scientifically speaking, both black and white are fictions. Skin pigmentation comes an interesting and bewildering variety of hues shades. 

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

What for? They not relevant in any sense.

It was relevant to my point, which you seem to be immune to understanding. Never mind. We'll let that talking point go.

Edited April 11, 2022 by StringJunky

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

As I pointed out earlier, this is not an accurate account of the situation, and the “bad optics” is a bad faith talking point from the right, from the “be outraged, make up a reason why” playbook.

So you're saying that it doesn't actually look bad, other than the fact that the Republicans are making it look bad?

Biden made a deal to make the process based first and foremost about race...and the Republicans are disingenuously pointing it out? What do they have to make up?

[Peterkin]

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

What do they have to make up?

Their outrage at some imagined injustice.  But it's not that hard; they've had plenty of practice.

[MSC]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

I'm sure KBJ will be an excellent Justice, and is extremely well quaified, but SCJustices are not supposed to represent specific groups of people; they are supposed to represent ALL people.
And while a black woman is a welcome addition, why was there a need for J Biden, to announce beforehand, that the selection criteria would be based on skin tone ( not race ) and gender ? 
Bad optics.

Because there was no way in hell others weren't going to mention it. Furthermore, within the confines of the war against racial prejudice in both the USA and abroad, it is also a form of leading by example. Some can call it virtue signaling if they like, but in the context of leadership, you have to account for leading by example. Why shouldn't we positively make a big deal of it when doing something against the grain? 

As it stands; Biden has the constituitionally given executive authority to nominate whom he wants to whatever criteria he deems needed for the good of the American people. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Their outrage at some imagined injustice.  But it's not that hard; they've had plenty of practice.

Do the Democrats not do that? Have they not had any practice?

[Peterkin]

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Do the Democrats not do that?

They don't need to be any good at it. The Republicans commit so many real and palpable injustices, behave so outrageously, piss off so many people that nobody has to fake anger at them. 

[MigL]

57 minutes ago, MSC said:

Furthermore, within the confines of the war against racial prejudice in both the USA and abroad, it is also a form of leading by example.

I know what you are trying to say, but to a lot of people, the example you are setting is that you can discriminate ( or sort/select ) according to skin color and gender.
J Biden, making the exact same choice, but not announcing his selection criteria beforehand, would not produce the same bad optics.

[iNow]

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

J Biden, making the exact same choice, but not announcing his selection criteria beforehand, would not produce the same bad optics.

I’ll keep asking: Why is Biden being treated different from D Trump, GHW Bush, R Regan, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, and other previous US Presidents who set precedents on this exact issue?

Edited April 11, 2022 by iNow

[MigL]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Why is Biden being treated different from Trump, GHW Bush, Regan, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, amd other previous US Presidents

Already addressed this ...

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Yes, of couse it's been done for a couple of hundred years, but tell me, how's that working out for you guys ?
Maybe it's time to try a new approach ?

 

[iNow]

8 minutes ago, MigL said:

Already addressed this ...

I see.

So everyone bitching and moaning and kvetching about this like it’s the 2nd Benghazi on steroids is REALLY just advocating for our union to be more perfect (despite these same people remaining completely silent during ALL of the previous 165 formal nominations presidents have made to the court).

Okay, Pollyanna. You go with that explanation if it helps you to sleep better at night. Your idealism is laudable. 

[MSC]

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

but to a lot of people, the example you are setting is that you can discriminate

A lot of people don't have an eye for nuance. I don't see what is so wrong with being explicit and clear, to say that it is right and good for an historically underrepresented demographic to have a seat on the Supreme Court when there is a qualified member of said demographic ready to go. 

I'm reminded of a comment I made on another thread, where I laid out clearly unique circumstances when discrimination is justifiable. Whether that is due to being blind disbarring you from being a pilot, being male disbarring you from being a pregnancy surrogate. Now those examples are all about disqualifying factors. The Supreme Court nomination of KBJ is seeing the ethnic selection criteria being used to elevate someone for restorative purposes without inflicting any hint of disqualification on such a basis. 

To say it more plainly, how can the act of nominating KBJ, in part because of her ethnicity, be considered bigoted when doing so has in no way amounted to other races being ineligible for Supreme Court positions in the future? What are the objective negative consequences that have or will arise from doing this?

 

49 minutes ago, MigL said:

but not announcing his selection criteria beforehand, would not produce the same bad optics.

I don't know about that. In this day and age of highly polarized political discourse, plenty of people are getting in trouble or accused of wrong doing for what they didn't say as much as they are for what they did say. I am quite certain that if it had been done without Biden mentioning his criteria, someone would have still accused him of race being a part of his selection criteria.

Sharing his criteria also just sounds like executive transparency to me. 

Edited April 11, 2022 by MSC

[Peterkin]

'Optics' (by which meant not  the branch of physics that studies the behaviour and properties of light, but a branch of public relations that studies how political actions appear in mass media) really shouldn't be a criterion for selecting the judges who rule on the constitutionality of legislation or make the final decision in landmark legal cases.

[swansont]

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

So you're saying that it doesn't actually look bad, other than the fact that the Republicans are making it look bad?

Biden made a deal to make the process based first and foremost about race...and the Republicans are disingenuously pointing it out? What do they have to make up?

The narrative is designed to make it look bad, but the narrative ignores certain facts. Biden promised to nominate a Black woman to the Supreme Court. The narrative that he somehow excluded others from consideration is premised on the notion that he didn’t already have candidate(s) in mind, and wasn’t aware of the top potential picks. Which is silly, since we know it to be false.

“I will nominate a black woman” followed by searching for one, and running the risk that you don’t have highly-qualified candidates so you pick one because you’ve backed yourself into a corner is what looks bad. But it’s fiction.

KBJ was on the previous shortlist (and Biden possibly being aware of other well-qualified WoC) and then saying “I will nominate a black woman” changes the scenario quite a bit. It has the benefit of being true, and not straining credulity.

 

 

8 hours ago, iNow said:

I’ll keep asking: Why is Biden being treated different from D Trump, GHW Bush, R Regan, Lyndon Johnson, Dwight Eisenhower, and other previous US Presidents who set precedents on this exact issue?

In addition I would suggest that all of those presidents had a candidate or two on a list before making the associated announcement 

[MigL]

13 hours ago, iNow said:

Okay, Pollyanna. You go with that explanation if it helps you to sleep better at night. Your idealism is laudable. 

Well this Pollyanna certainly complained about the partisan actions of the Trump administration.
I didn't have much to complaina about the Obama administration, and wasn't a member during the GW Bush administration.

Or did you mean another Pollyanna ?

12 hours ago, MSC said:

Whether that is due to being blind disbarring you from being a pilot, being male disbarring you from being a pregnancy surrogate. Now those examples are all about disqualifying factors.

That is not discrimination; that is inability.
And i'n not saying KBJ isn't extremely capable, but that stating beforehand that you will pick a black woman gives the impression that you are discriminating ( or choosing ) according to skin color and gender.

 

12 hours ago, Peterkin said:

'Optics' (by which meant not  the branch of physics that studies the behaviour and properties of light, but a branch of public relations that studies how political actions appear in mass media) really shouldn't be a criterion for selecting the judges

In both cases it is how things appear to the masses.

 

7 hours ago, swansont said:

The narrative that he somehow excluded others from consideration is premised on the notion that he didn’t already have candidate(s) in mind

Sure, but why announce it beforehand; it gives the impression that qualifications don't matter, just skin color and gender.
IOW, whether true or not, bad optics.

[Peterkin]

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

In both cases it is how things appear to the masses.

In neither case should it be an obstacle to the placing the appropriate person in each responsible position. Anyone arguing 'the optics' of a political appointment is waving a dead fish and calling it a red flag. 

[swansont]

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

Sure, but why announce it beforehand

He was campaigning. The people that are publicly upset about this seem to be strongly in the camp of "didn't vote for Biden" and as we saw in the confirmation hearings, qualifications were not the issue. The hand-wringing was manufactured. All theater. If they had substantive objections, they didn't seem to make an appearance in the hearings. A few senators even admitted she is well-qualified, but they were voting against her anyway.