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 hour ago, MigL said:

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.

No, it is the act of discriminating(a verb) based on inability. It's still discrimination in the objective sense of the word. Discriminate is a very neutral word, there are positive and negative uses of it. A good example of positive discrimination, would be discrimination based on competency. The blind being rejected from an airline pilot training program is also positive discrimination. By positive, we mean justified. 

An example of negative discrimination is when an employer decides not to hire a black person because he assumes they will rob him or because the owner is secretly a grand wizard of the kkk. For Biden to have exercised a form of negative discrimination, he would have had to have ignored ALL other selection criteria and nominated someone wholly on the colour of their skin, whether qualified or not. 

I do feel as if a great many number of my earlier points have not been properly acknowledged. Does any one else appreciate that someone with a background in public defense getting onto SCOTUS, is an historic achievement regardless of all other factors?

Like it or not, race and racial inequality  matters to the American voter. For any presidential candidate not to be aware of that and not acknowledging it, would amount to political suicide. 

Tbh, I thought that a politician campaigning for an election was meant to virtue signal? Isn't the whole point that we want the best people for the job? So why should we be shocked when they do something meant to influence people to think well of them? 

Both sides of the aisle virtue signal frequently, as they are nearly always playing for an audience of voters. So I just don't understand the outrage or offense caused here. None of us were up for a Supreme Court nomination and I've not heard of any eligible judges who lost out this time around crying foul.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, MigL said:

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.

Even if she was not the most capable person, generally speaking, (but still extremely quailified) and as per the addage "justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done" isn't the concept of both male and female being represented, as well as whites and non whites, worth adhering to? I would also be of the same opinion if the whole five judges most qualified (is that the number) of the US supreme court, were all black and female. I would see the necessary representation of at least one white male. 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

 A few senators even admitted she is well-qualified, but they were voting against her anyway.

Now that is a problem! and probably part of the reason why the political divide in the US, appears so distant from each other.

[MigL]

3 hours ago, MSC said:

Discriminate is a very neutral word, there are positive and negative uses of it. A good example of positive discrimination, would be discrimination based on competency. The blind being rejected from an airline pilot training program is also positive discrimination.

I beg to differ.
I'm visually impaired ( only see with one eye , and glaucoma in the other ) and barely able to drive, with no depth perception; I'm not discriminated against if told I cannot fly a plane.
I Know I'm incapable of doing so.
When did inability to do something become a discrimination ( in the accepted use of the word ) ?

To be clear, just in case some are misunderstanding, I think KBJ is extremely qualified, and an excellent choice.

But some people are of the opinion that preannouncing his criteria, of skin color and gender, looks bad.
And those people are entitled to an opinion and a vote also, no matter how much INow protests that it's 'made up' outrage.

[CharonY]

11 minutes ago, MigL said:

I beg to differ.
I'm visually impaired ( only see with one eye , and glaucoma in the other ) and barely able to drive, with no depth perception; I'm not discriminated against if told I cannot fly a plane.
I Know I'm incapable of doing so.
When did inability to do something become a discrimination ( in the accepted use of the word ) ?

To be clear, just in case some are misunderstanding, I think KBJ is extremely qualified, and an excellent choice.

But some people are of the opinion that preannouncing his criteria, of skin color and gender, looks bad.
And those people are entitled to an opinion and a vote also, no matter how much INow protests that it's 'made up' outrage.

So the argument then seems to be that white male judges do not bring the personal experience and potential diversity in experiences to the table that a black female judge would bring.

 

[iNow]

23 minutes ago, MigL said:

But some people are of the opinion that preannouncing his criteria, of skin color and gender, looks bad.
And those people are entitled to an opinion and a vote also, no matter how much INow protests that it's 'made up' outrage.

That’s totally fair, but once again… why haven’t we heard from these people all of the many other times the criteria of skin color and gender were preannounced? What’s different this time?

(Or, more specific to your own stance, why were you silent in wanting us to make our union more perfect those many other times… why the sudden need to realize this isn’t ideal this time… even when it also happened just 3 years ago)?

Edited April 11, 2022 by iNow

[MSC]

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

beg to differ.
I'm visually impaired ( only see with one eye , and glaucoma in the other ) and barely able to drive, with no depth perception; I'm not discriminated against if told I cannot fly a plane.

Have you actually tried to ask to fly a plane after being forthright about the visual impairment though? 

Inability to do something is just that, inability. It becomes discrimination when someone tells you that you cannot do it because of that. Like if I tell a child they aren't allowed to drive a car because they are too young. 

It needs to be that way, so that a surgeon later diagnosed with Parkinsons cannot sue his employer, citing disability discrimination, when told he is incapable of being a surgeon any longer. 

I guess for me to think of it as unjustifiable discrimination in regards to Supreme Court nominees, there would have to be some kind of prejudicial sentiment towards the demographics that were left out. IE, White Males... of which Biden is one. So I don't know how you would go about proving that a black female judge was picked because Biden hates white males? 

At the end of the day, I don't really care what people think of the optics. How something looks and how they actually are, are not the same. If people think it looks bad, when it isn't, then they can just be wrong I guess.

[J.C.MacSwell]

15 hours ago, swansont said:

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.

 

 

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

Can you provide a link where Biden clearly stated he had candidates in mind, or barring that admit Biden could have handled it better. 

Outside of that I could sympathize with your position that the GOP are taking advantage...of Biden dropping the ball...if it wasn't perfectly obvious that the Dems do the same at every opportunity. (including where there's no real opportunity...and the extremes just can't help themselves...and the rest go along with it)

 

1 hour ago, iNow said:

That’s totally fair, but once again… why haven’t we heard from these people all of the many other times the criteria of skin color and gender were preannounced? What’s different this time?

(Or, more specific to your own stance, why were you silent in wanting us to make our union more perfect those many other times… why the sudden need to realize this isn’t ideal this time… even when it also happened just 3 years ago)?

You mean when Trump excluded all males while making it clear he had a list?

(With both males and females on it)

Excluding the almost half the populations demographic that was well represented (males), is not the same as excluding 94% of the population, which would included unrepresented demographics.

Not that I think it's a big deal, KBJ sounds pretty good, but let's not conflate her personally with the racializing of the process, which I'm sure the worst of the GOP might do.

Susan Collins voted for her...once again showing she has more integrity than the average of either party...just sayin'.

[Peterkin]

53 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Can you provide a link where Biden clearly stated he had candidates in mind,

Can you provide a link to any candidate, ever, clearly stating who was in their mind before the election for all the appointments they might have the power to make after the election? 

[J.C.MacSwell]

1 minute ago, Peterkin said:

Can you provide a link to any candidate, ever, clearly stating who was in their mind before the election for all the appointments they might have the power to make after the election? 

I'm not going to go look for one if that's what you're asking. Why should I?

[TheVat]

6 hours ago, MSC said:

 

I do feel as if a great many number of my earlier points have not been properly acknowledged. Does any one else appreciate that someone with a background in public defense getting onto SCOTUS, is an historic achievement regardless of all other factors?

Like it or not, race and racial inequality  matters to the American voter. For any presidential candidate not to be aware of that and not acknowledging it, would amount to political suicide. 

Tbh, I thought that a politician campaigning for an election was meant to virtue signal? Isn't the whole point that we want the best people for the job? So why should we be shocked when they do something meant to influence people to think well of them? 

Both sides of the aisle virtue signal frequently, as they are nearly always playing for an audience of voters. So I just don't understand the outrage or offense caused here. None of us were up for a Supreme Court nomination and I've not heard of any eligible judges who lost out this time around crying foul.

A common experience here (bolded comment of yours).  I, too, earlier in the thread mentioned her unique PD experience, questioned the pejorative implication attached to "virtue signaling" and pointed out the nature of political appointments.  Comments in such a busy thread often get lost in the shuffle, so I was glad you brought some of those matters up, too.  

BTW, I liked your earlier observations about the falseness of "color-blindness." Some insight I had on such pretense was from a Black woman who told a friend, I don't want you to be color-blind, I want you to see me.  See who I am, where I come from, how being Black is part of that.  Not verbatim but that was the gist.  

On a side note - A while back here, someone used the term Social Justice Warrior pejoratively, as is now common on the Right.  And I had to wonder what on earth is wrong with fighting for social justice??  Similar situation to "virtue signaling."  Just using a term pejoratively is not an adequate substitute for real thought.

 

[MigL]

2 hours ago, MSC said:

I guess for me to think of it as unjustifiable discrimination in regards to Supreme Court nominees, there would have to be some kind of prejudicial sentiment towards ... demographics

That is certainly very accurate, and my understanding also.

Parse your quoted sentence very carefully, and tell me how it differs from J Biden's pre-announcement " I will pick a black woman for SCJ" ( paraphrased ).

[TheVat]

The mayor has added a homeless man to his city's Homelessness Task Force.  Does he have a prejudicial sentiment towards domiciled people by making this selection?  Or did he just want a particular perspective and life experience to fill that vacancy?  

 

[MigL]

2 hours ago, MSC said:

Have you actually tried to ask to fly a plane after being forthright about the visual impairment though? 

As a matter of fact, yes.
Ever since I was a little kid, I've always wanted to fly jet planes.
Unfortunately I've been severely myopic since the age of 6, lost vision in my left eye at the age of 35 when I was diagnosed with glaucoma, had several filtering operations, cataracts, and two eye drops twice a day in my fight to keep what little vision I have left.
So I know very well what I'm capable of doing; even my work knows that when I call in sick, I actually can't see well enough to drive in bad weather.

I had to settle for being very interested in modern military aviation, and considered attending the University of Toronto for Aerospace Engineering, rather than Physics

8 minutes ago, TheVat said:

The mayor has added a homeless man to his city's Homelessness Task Force.  Does he have a prejudicial sentiment towards domiciled people by making this selection?

Not in making the selection.
But in announcing beforehand that those are the candidates he is looking for.

Does that exclude other candidates who are domiciled?
I don't know; but it certainly 'looks' that way.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'm not going to go look for one if that's what you're asking. Why should I?

For the very same reason nobody should bother looking for an answer to your question about Biden.

39 minutes ago, TheVat said:

And I had to wonder what on earth is wrong with fighting for social justice?? 

The fact that they've also made social justice synonymous with class warfare. Apparently both are unAmerican concepts. 

There is a lovely scene in Babylon 5 (S3 E5 Voices of Authority) where the political envoy from Earth explains that they no longer have problems like homelessness and unemployment; all those problems had been solved. Sheridan asks "When did all this happen?" The reply "When we rewrote the dictionary."

[iNow]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Excluding the almost half the populations demographic that was well represented (males), is not the same as excluding 94% of the population, which would included unrepresented demographics.

I see. So saying in advance that you plan to exclude half the population is not enough for you to comment. They said “I’ll pick a female” and you were silent. Okay, I can get onboard with that.

I notice, however, that you were also silent when they said they’d pick a black person. Last time this was preannounced, black individuals constituted 12% of the population. This means that saying in advance you plan to exclude 88% of the population was also not enough to prompt you to comment, neither then nor now. 

This is good, though. Now we’re finally getting somewhere. 

So here’s where are: Excluding 88%, a-ok. Excluding 94%, no bueno. Therefore, we know your threshold for speaking out is somewhere between those two numbers. 

So, what is the threshold for you to comment on nominations like this? Is it 89% exclusion? 90% exclusion? 91%? 92%?

Or, did they JUST barely miss your personal threshold of 93% exclusion being okay, but not 94%?

That’d be a real bummer to lose your support for preannouncing by a such a mouses ball hair like that, but  hey… I guess it happens. 

Edited April 12, 2022 by iNow

[swansont]

11 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Can you provide a link where Biden clearly stated he had candidates in mind, or barring that admit Biden could have handled it better. 

No. I provided a link that showed this was the case. You would have to be pretty naive to think that the VP during the Merrick Garland nomination, and someone who was previously chair of the senate judiciary committee for 8 years, was oblivious to the qualifications of numerous candidates for the job. So to be clear: I never claimed he stated this. Nor was I arguing about how he handled it. I was pointing out certain bad faith arguments made in opposition; ones that have been credulously repeated by others.

Yes, I suppose you could say he could have handled it better, but IMO it would have made little difference, because the same people who voiced their objections would have just manufactured different ones, because this wasn't about the stated controversy, it was just about having some controversy to complain about. Because that's the M.O. of today's GOP.

Quote

Outside of that I could sympathize with your position that the GOP are taking advantage...of Biden dropping the ball.

I don't think he dropped the ball. That's the spin of the GOP, and you, in making/parroting the bad-faith arguments. 

 

13 hours ago, MigL said:

When did inability to do something become a discrimination

The person lacking the ability is not doing the discriminating. The discriminating is done by someone assessing the others' ability. And it happens all the time in the hiring process, and also in the appointment process.

9 hours ago, MigL said:

But in announcing beforehand that those are the candidates he is looking for.

OK, let's put it this way: we require three years of experience in order to qualify for this position.

Something like that is pretty much a boiler-plate statement for certain jobs. In this example, that experience is being homeless.

[MSC]

11 hours ago, TheVat said:

On a side note - A while back here, someone used the term Social Justice Warrior pejoratively, as is now common on the Right.  And I had to wonder what on earth is wrong with fighting for social justice??  Similar situation to "virtue signaling."  Just using a term pejoratively is not an adequate substitute for real thought.

Well before Virtue signaling and social justice warrior were being used as a pejorative, it was just do-gooder that was used. To this day, I've yet to meet a person who could convince me that someone who literally does good, is bad? English called. Its revoking your right to use it until you can figure out what basic words mean 😆 

10 hours ago, iNow said:

So here’s where are: Excluding 88%, a-ok. Excluding 94%, no bueno. Therefore, we know your threshold for speaking out is somewhere between those two numbers. 

So, what is the threshold for you to comment on nominations like this? Is it 89% exclusion? 90% exclusion? 91%? 92%?

Or, did they JUST barely miss your personal threshold of 93% exclusion being okay, but not 94%?

The exclusion percentage is even higher when you take into consideration that only people who are or were a judge at some point were even eligible 😆 probably only a percentage of a percentage of this country are judges. So the exclusion rate there is probably 99.999999 something 😆 

10 hours ago, MigL said:

As a matter of fact, yes.
Ever since I was a little kid, I've always wanted to fly jet planes.
Unfortunately I've been severely myopic since the age of 6, lost vision in my left eye at the age of 35 when I was diagnosed with glaucoma, had several filtering operations, cataracts, and two eye drops twice a day in my fight to keep what little vision I have left.
So I know very well what I'm capable of doing; even my work knows that when I call in sick, I actually can't see well enough to drive in bad weather.

I had to settle for being very interested in modern military aviation, and considered attending the University of Toronto for Aerospace Engineering, rather than Physics

That must have been really terrifying and difficult to go through for you, losing your vision I mean. You have my sympathy there. Not something I'd wish on anyone... except legit racists 😆 they can go blind for all I care. 

That's the thing though, if you were to apply to be a pilot, and rejected because of something that could constitute a disability, you would not be entitled to sue, even though technically the law has been broken to do so. 

I tried to join the Royal Air Force back in the UK because I have an autism spectrum diagnosis. Which personally; I think is a total crock of shit. I had some shitty Lance Jack trying to give me shit on the phone for wasting their time when I called up to join. One of the secretaries was trying to get answers for me on what autism issues specifically make someone ineligible, as it may be that my presentation of autism doesn't cross over into those issues. Anyway this Lance Corporal got angry that the secretary was doing that for me and told me that they don't have to explain anything to me at all. Then again, he sounded like he was from Southern England so maybe he was talking shit and just hates Scottish people?

[iNow]

8 hours ago, Kittenpuncher said:

I've noticed that a lot of black people that are elected to high positions of power Kind of tend to stab their own race in the back <...> they wind up seeming like race traitors to a lot of folks <...> undermining the whole white republican mental well being thing <...> she seemed to dislike religion a lot in general which the interviewer disregarded, he was not a very religious person either (he told her a bunch of trivia about his church habits and beliefs on camera) <...> It's usually the people around me that cause problems in my life anyway <...> It's probably really unhealthy to let some person on a TV screen drive you to such a dark & hateful state of mind anyway

FYI, when people mention the idea of you trolling, hijacking threads, being off-topic, and contributing nothing of value to discussions more broadly, they're referring to posts like these.

Please don't reply. I've extended the time you've gone off topic by responding with this feedback and if you wish to pursue it further, this thread is definitely NOT the place to do so. 

 

1 hour ago, MSC said:

The exclusion percentage is even higher when you take into consideration that only people who are or were a judge at some point were even eligible 😆 probably only a percentage of a percentage of this country are judges. So the exclusion rate there is probably 99.999999 something

Excellent point, but I really didn't want to spend that much time researching the demographics of jurists specifically just to make my obvious (and hopefully somewhat humorous) point. 

[MSC]

11 minutes ago, iNow said:

Excellent point, but I really didn't want to spend that much time researching the demographics of jurists specifically just to make my obvious (and hopefully somewhat humorous) point. 

Don't worry, the humour came through! 😆 

[J.C.MacSwell]

21 hours ago, iNow said:

I see. So saying in advance that you plan to exclude half the population is not enough for you to comment. They said “I’ll pick a female” and you were silent. Okay, I can get onboard with that.

I notice, however, that you were also silent when they said they’d pick a black person. Last time this was preannounced, black individuals constituted 12% of the population. This means that saying in advance you plan to exclude 88% of the population was also not enough to prompt you to comment, neither then nor now. 

This is good, though. Now we’re finally getting somewhere. 

So here’s where are: Excluding 88%, a-ok. Excluding 94%, no bueno. Therefore, we know your threshold for speaking out is somewhere between those two numbers. 

So, what is the threshold for you to comment on nominations like this? Is it 89% exclusion? 90% exclusion? 91%? 92%?

Or, did they JUST barely miss your personal threshold of 93% exclusion being okay, but not 94%?

That’d be a real bummer to lose your support for preannouncing by a such a mouses ball hair like that, but  hey… I guess it happens. 

I've gone on record in other threads you participated in that I am in favour of affirmative action in some cases, and to some degree.

I'll add here that it shouldn't be used to force equality beyond moving toward equal opportunity.

Breaking the "old boys club" where it clearly exists..I think it can be justified, just keep in mind all boys aren't in that club.

So where was I when Trump announced he was picking a female?

Consistent with the above. Same as I have been throughout this thread.

So now we have 2 of 9 on the SCOTUS where there racial demographic makes up 12%. If, despite that, it was announced that blacks were ineligible to be picked next time...be assured I would speak out against such nonsense.

 

22 hours ago, iNow said:

I notice, however, that you were also silent when they said they’d pick a black person. Last time this was preannounced, black individuals constituted 12% of the population. This means that saying in advance you plan to exclude 88% of the population was also not enough to prompt you to comment, neither then nor now. 

 

Was that you hiding in my attic? 

[Peterkin]

Not that Affirmative Action has much - or, really, anything - to do with Jackson's appointment, but so long as you're in selective favour of it, this bit's interesting:

 

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I'll add here that it shouldn't be used to force equality beyond moving toward equal opportunity.

Toward, always moving, ever so slowly, toward. Why not just have equal opportunity now, stop bitching about it, and move on to fix the police, the infrastructure, the health care system and the slums?

[J.C.MacSwell]

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

Not that Affirmative Action has much - or, really, anything - to do with Jackson's appointment, but so long as you're in selective favour of it, this bit's interesting:

Toward, always moving, ever so slowly, toward. Why not just have equal opportunity now, stop bitching about it... 

Because creating it immediately requires making sure no one has any opportunity, short of some omnipresent God stepping in.

On the topic at hand, how would you suggest it be done without throwing the 9 justices out on their asses?

Or put another way, who do you trust to create and maintain your version of equal opportunity?

4 hours ago, Peterkin said:

... and move on to fix the police, the infrastructure, the health care system and the slums?

Maybe it might be better to actually focus more on that, in a more equitable manner than currently exists.

Not that it's easy, but actual progress can be made.

[Intoscience]

On 4/11/2022 at 7:03 PM, MSC said:

 For Biden to have exercised a form of negative discrimination, he would have had to have ignored ALL other selection criteria and nominated someone wholly on the colour of their skin, whether qualified or not. 

I'm not sure this is true (my bold) any selection criteria ignored in favour of skin colour, gender, race, religion... could be considered negative discrimination.  

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

On the topic at hand, how would you suggest it be done without throwing the 9 justices out on their asses?

Stop using the Supreme Court as a political arena. I'm not averse to throwing this lot (though I quite like a couple of them) out (Not on asses, or even assets: there is graceful retirement, emeritus professorships, consultation or stepping back to a lower court vacancy.) and starting fresh with a Supreme court selected by jurists in good standing. The Canadian and Danish systems are examples of the advice-and-consent process, though quite different in their composition.  The French one is very different again and more complicated. In all cases, jurisprudence is not so insanely political as in the United States - and (?coincidentally?) works better. 

 

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Or put another way, who do you trust to create and maintain your version of equal opportunity?

Bernie Sanders.

I'd've been happy with Jack Layton, but he went and died on us, so I have to trust Trudeau the Younger. As the falling man said at the 17th floor, "Okay so far!"

7 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Maybe it might be better to actually focus more on that, in a more equitable manner than currently exists

Can't be done as long as mad, bad legislation is adjudicated by political appointees.

Edited April 13, 2022 by Peterkin

[MSC]

7 hours ago, Intoscience said:

I'm not sure this is true (my bold) any selection criteria ignored in favour of skin colour, gender, race, religion... could be considered negative discrimination. 

So would you also say that Donald Trumps explicit promise to appoint a woman was also negative discrimination? 

I think the main point here; is that for both Trump and Biden, neither of them ignored the main selection criteria. IE, a judge/jurist in good standing in their field with a wealth of experience in rendering verdicts and an excellent memory and familiarity with the constitution. It seems clear to me, that the keystone of affirmative action, holistic review, was applied professionally.

I have realised a massive assumption that has been made about the entirety of the history of SCOTUS. Out of every Supreme Court justice, nomatter the selection criteria used, how do we know they were truly the best pick for the job? We can maybe say, that up until now, they have been the best picks for a political party. But how do we evaluate whether or not they were the best picks for the American People? 

At the end of the day, I just don't buy the mental gymnastics one is required to perform, that appointing the first woman whom is black, to a seat on the Supreme court; is insulting to black women? There is only ever one seat up for grabs on the SC at anytime. There is nobody on this earth who can possibly take the spot that represents all demographics. As it stands, KBJ represents over half the country, as both a black person and as a woman. I don't know why people are choosing to ignore that "black woman" is one aspect of her identity, rather than two. 

Since we are on the topic of protected characteristics, why shouldn't every lawyer who has not been in the field long enough to become a judge, not cry foul by claiming age discrimination? 

Or maybe there is a judge in a wheelchair who feels completely invisible and has never once been up for consideration for nomination. 

Ultimately all cries for this to be challenged on the basis of race discrimination, will not hold enough weight. The votes are there. KBJ will sit on the court. She will be the first woman whom is black on the court. She will be the first person to bring public defense experience with her, and unless anything changes in regards to SC appointees term limits; she will be on that court for the rest of her life or until she chooses to retire.

I think at this point, since the question revolves around whether or not she was or wasn't the best pick for the American people; we have very little information to go on until she has actually spent some time on the court making decisions.

This is a science forum in the end, so let's all act like it; and reserve our judgements and conclusions for after a period of critical observation. Maybe we can all come back to this thread in a year or two.