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?

[MigL]

You guys are, of course, entitled to your subjective opinions, as I am to mine.
But would you feel the same way if he had announced beforehand "I will pick an old white man" ?

I would assume all your arguments for having done his homework and picking the most qualified individual could still be made.
As could arguments forsatisfying election promises to his base.

But would it not leave a bad taste in your mouth ?

He could have easily said "I will pick the person I think is most qualified, regardless of skin color or gender", gone ahead to pick KBJ, and no-one ( except the usual idiots ) would have complained.
Not even J Peterson ( ? ), Peterkin.

Edited April 14, 2022 by MigL

[Peterkin]

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

"I will pick an old white man" ?

When did age come into it?

If he had promised an enthusiastic rally of seniors, that might make campaign sense in the moment, even though men are still not underrepresented on the supreme court, and they're all expected to grow old and die in  their robes. 

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

I would assume all your arguments for having done his homework and picking the most qualified individual could still be made.

Of course. The available pool of candidates would have been larger, so I'd expect the process to take longer - unless he was determined to find a combat veteran of Ukrainian background - only he'd've had to be prescient, which would be spooky in an old white man. 

 

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

But would it not leave a bad taste in your mouth ?

I have no reason to taste Biden's decisions.

 

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

"I will pick the person I think is most qualified, regardless of skin color or gender",

Or, he could have told a lie, or he could have said nothing - which is what that platitude amounts to. There is precedent for all of those statement, as well as for announcing the demographic a presidential candidate intends to aim for, and also for the unquestioned assumption that it has to be an old white man. 

 

32 minutes ago, MigL said:

no-one ... would have complained.
Not even J Peterson

This, I would not swear by. He gives his audience what it pays for. 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Peterkin

[beecee]

56 minutes ago, MigL said:

You guys are, of course, entitled to your subjective opinions, as I am to mine.
But would you feel the same way if he had announced beforehand "I will pick an old white man" ?

Of course to the first senetnce! On the second, my only criticism of Biden himself, was that he maybe too old for the job. Of course though, that is more then balanced by the deposing of the meglomaniac fool you had previously as President.

56 minutes ago, MigL said:

He could have easily said "I will pick the person I think is most qualified, regardless of skin color or gender", gone ahead to pick KBJ, and no-one ( except the usual idiots ) 

And sure, essentially and morally that is the correct decision in any reasonable democratic society. But that also needs (imo) to be weighed up against the premise that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. And having so large a percentage of your population being Afro-American decent, it would be presumably comforting and pleasing to them to have that representation in the courts. As long as of course, that person is truly qualified. Let's say for example you have a vacancy in your high court system...You have ten potential all well qualified persons in line for selection to that vacancy. All the potential well qualified persons are male, except for one female Afro-American woman. And lets say the already appointed judges sitting in the high court are all white male. Don't you think it would be "nice"and wise, and appropriate to elect that female Afro-American to the vacancy?...particularly if there is only a hairs breadth between the capabilities, honesty and moral standings of all those potential well qualified persons waiting for that decision.

But don't despair too  much, at times such quanderies also face us down under.

Edited April 14, 2022 by beecee

[MSC]

43 minutes ago, MigL said:

But would it not leave a bad taste in your mouth ?

He could have easily said "I will pick the person I think is most qualified, regardless of skin color or gender", gone ahead to pick KBJ, and no-one ( except the usual idiots ) would have complained.
Not even J Peterson ( ? ), Peterkin.

Morally or ethically? No. No bad taste in my mouth. Either way it was about God damn time. However you have phrased it in a way, where I'm realizing that in terms of strategy and tactics, it does actually leave a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.. or not bad so much as a bit sour. 

I think, the context seems to fit better for Biden just making the declaration that way, for the benefit of his generation, as opposed to most everyone else. I suppose in some ways, Biden was also making a moral statement. That it is right and just that a black woman be on SCOTUS. Here is someone whom is qualified.

But yeah, if it was me, I'd have just said I picked the most qualified person and dare the opposition to bring up her being black or a woman. 

As politicians go, Biden is a pretty straight shooter. Maybe it's his age or I dunno. I can conceive of baiting the GOP like that due to adherence to a few of Machiavellis principles when it comes to playing the game of politics. He's a tad out of date and his name and work seemed to end up tied into theories of evil. To me he was just somewhat of a political philosopher and proto-sociologist almost.

Unless Biden is VERY good at that sort of strategy, to me he just doesn't strike me as the type. If he is though, then maybe being explicit is long term policy motivated.

For example; this could be a way to test the waters on how much influence he can have on the structure and mechanisms of the court or just one a few democratic senators who play hardball like Manchin. I dunno. Pure speculation.

[MigL]

As I've previously stated, this is my subjective opinion, and I'm not even very concerned about it.
I think he made a good choice; but it could have been handled differently, and I wanted to explore that particular viewpoint.

What actually concerns me more ( as much as it could possibly concern a Canadian ) is the appointment of SCJustices according to political leaning.
When one party is in power, they stuff the Court with their partisan candidates, and when the other party gains power, they do the same, in a never ending game of one-upping each other.
The Justices should interpret law according to the constitution, and where outdated, according to societal standards; certainly not according to political expediency

Edited April 14, 2022 by MigL

[iNow]

Interpretation and judgement are funny that way. Two people looking at situation often see different things. Such is the nature of interpretation and judging, and one’s outlook on the world cannot be subtracted from the process. 

[Peterkin]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

What actually concerns me more ( as much as it could possibly concern a Canadian ) is the appointment of SCJustices according to political leaning.

It was never a good idea to politicize jurisprudence. It was never a good idea to have different methods of appointment/election for judgeships in each state, and different again federally. It was never a good idea for jurists, from DA to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court compete for their successive posts with a party label next to their name. https://ballotpedia.org/Judicial_selection_in_the_states

The framers of the constitution never envisaged such an immense, diverse and divided country (though they should have, given the rifts they built into the foundation); they assumed governance and law would always be in the hands a ruling elite just like them, who all spoke the same language.

Edited April 15, 2022 by Peterkin

[Peterkin]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

When one party is in power, they stuff the Court with their partisan candidates, and when the other party gains power, they do the same, in a never ending game of one-upping each other.

They try to. That's why the post is for life: the next party coming in can't remove them; the idea being continuity and balance. The upside is, the president who appointed them is gone and they're free off obligation from then on; the downside is the risk of feeble, outdated and senile judges. The current crop looks good for a long haul. 

3 hours ago, MigL said:

The Justices should interpret law according to the constitution, and where outdated, according to societal standards; certainly not according to political expediency

It's not about expediency - they're at the secure top of judicial achievement; nothing to gain or lose. It's about long-standing convictions, prejudices and legal stances. So, when the constitution is outdated and the relevant amendment is ambiguous, they interpret according to their religious or political leanings. When the president chooses a supreme court nominee, he's looking at their decision record - how many people they've sent to death row, how many times times they've ruled for restricting reproductive rights, withholding social assistance, election rigging practices and other state legislations, corporate and human rights challenges, reform attempts, etc. Precedent is everything... except when an appointee fools you.         

[Intoscience]

On 4/14/2022 at 9:18 PM, beecee said:

Of course to the first senetnce! On the second, my only criticism of Biden himself, was that he maybe too old for the job. Of course though, that is more then balanced by the deposing of the meglomaniac fool you had previously as President.

And sure, essentially and morally that is the correct decision in any reasonable democratic society. But that also needs (imo) to be weighed up against the premise that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. And having so large a percentage of your population being Afro-American decent, it would be presumably comforting and pleasing to them to have that representation in the courts. As long as of course, that person is truly qualified. Let's say for example you have a vacancy in your high court system...You have ten potential all well qualified persons in line for selection to that vacancy. All the potential well qualified persons are male, except for one female Afro-American woman. And lets say the already appointed judges sitting in the high court are all white male. Don't you think it would be "nice"and wise, and appropriate to elect that female Afro-American to the vacancy?...particularly if there is only a hairs breadth between the capabilities, honesty and moral standings of all those potential well qualified persons waiting for that decision.

But don't despair too  much, at times such quanderies also face us down under.

Yes, no one is arguing his choice. We (or so it appears) all agree that KBJ was an excellent choice and a long time coming!! All we are saying, is that it would have been wiser to have kept his mouth shut. In my opinion it would have given his choice even more strength and credibility if he hadn't "pre selected" publicly. 

I just think that his announcement prior potentially undermines his choice, or at least provides fuel to encourage or create a different perspective which could undermine his choice. 

In modern society people want to feel that there is totally unbiased equal opportunity (maybe just an idealism). So many groups have been supressed throughout history, be it race, creed or gender driven. The key is to give the previously supressed groups that unbiased opportunity without appearing biased, be that positive or negative. My son's wife is Afro Caribbean, she works in the legal system, I have had this discussion with her and though delighted by Biden's choice, she agrees that his announcement prior could be perceived negatively, which potentially takes the "shine" off KBJ's appointment.   

Edited April 18, 2022 by Intoscience
spelling

[iNow]

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

In my opinion it would have given his choice even more strength and credibility if he hadn't "pre selected" publicly.

If the choice was "pre-selected" as you and so many others have suggested, then I'm left wondering why were any of us discussing these other nominees when Steven Breyer announced his upcoming retirement? Do you know?

1. California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger

2. U.S. District Judge J. Michelle Childs

3. 7th Circuit Judge Candace Rae Jackson-Akiwumi

4. Delaware Supreme Court Justice Tamika Montgomery-Reeves

5. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund President Sherrilyn Ifill

6. New York 2nd Circuit Judge Eunice Lee

7. Federal district court Judge Wilhelmina “Mimi” Wright from Minnesota

8. Kristen Clarke, who runs the Justice Department’s civil rights division

9. L. Song Richardson, president of Colorado College and a former dean of University of California at Irvine Law School

10. Federal district court Judge Leslie Abrams Gardner from Georgia

 

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

In modern society people want to feel that there is totally unbiased equal opportunity

I suspect all of the non-white male judges over the last 200+ years agree with you on this. 

 

5 hours ago, Intoscience said:

The key is to give the previously supressed groups that unbiased opportunity without appearing biased, be that positive or negative.

Yeah, god forbid we risk insulting the oversensitive delicate egos of white males who have unjustly benefited from the legacy system since basically forever and who feel butthurt that their previous position of privilege is finally eroding. 

https://www.boredpanda.com/lesson-about-privilege-awareness/

Edited April 18, 2022 by iNow

[MigL]

51 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yeah, god forbid we risk insulting the oversensitive delicate egos of white males who have unjustly benefited from the legacy system since basically forever and who feel butthurt that their previous position of privilege is finally eroding. 

Used to be 'too bad', and your fault, if you were born black, now apparently it's your fault if you are born white, as INow thinks you have to shoulder the burden of all white misdeeds throughout history.

If I was an American Judge, and my president told me he will pick a black woman for the Supreme Court, apparently my delicate ego would be butt-hurt, since I have benefitted from my previous position of privilege.
Now I can only speak for the large numbers of Italian immigrants to the US who may have risen to judge status, but 200 years ago, at the height of slavery in the US, and the beginning of my so-called privilege, other Italians, like me, were being oppressed by the Austrio-Hungarian Empire, the French and Spanish Empires, and the Papal States.

The Polish and Irish immigrants to the US were also similarly 'privileged', and should also be ashamed of their skin color.

I think the American canvas needs to be painted with a much smaller brush, INow.
You are missing a lot of detail.
 

[iNow]

12 minutes ago, MigL said:

apparently it's your fault if you are born white, as INow thinks you have to shoulder the burden of all white misdeeds throughout history.

Yes. You have PERFECTLY described my thoughts. Golly... it's as if you're inside my head it's so precise and accurate!

 

 

/sarcasm

[CharonY]

Yes opportunities and for Italians an Irish for example have changed, maybe as late as the 20th century. About time we do it for other minorities, no?

[MigL]

17 minutes ago, iNow said:

Golly... it's as if you're inside my head it's so precise and accurate!

If the point you were attempting to make was not precise enough, I suggest sharpening your pencil ( and thinking ).

 

16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

About time we do it for other minorities, no?

Absolutely.
But I'm of the opinion that discrimination ( as J Biden's pre-announcement appeared to do ) is not the way to do it.
That is what created this mess to begin with.

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

f I was an American Judge, and my president told me he will pick a black woman for the Supreme Court, apparently my delicate ego would be butt-hurt, since I have benefitted from my previous position of privilege.

It wasn't the judges who complained. It never is; it's usually somebody entirely outside the judiciary, who has no idea how to assess qualifications or relative positions of power, or even the constitutional stance of candidates. There is no shortage of self-appointed spokesmen to howl foul on behalf of the poor downtrodden privileged.

[TheVat]

Y'all are still talking past each other, because the term discrimination is assumed to be pejorative by those arguing against criteria of ethnicity/gender for a particular appointment.  All appointment processes are discriminatory (look at Trump's cabinet, if you have a moment) - the issue in this case is whether or not that discrimination is warranted by what the judicial panel needs to best perform its duties.  

The pro argument seems to be that having that panel look as diverse as possible increases public trust in the justice system.  And broadens the life experience base of the Court.  And contributes opinions that reflect a special awareness of the impact of the justice system on the ethnicity which, per capita, has the highest level of contact with the justice system.

The con argument seems to be that....well, I'm having difficulty discerning anything beyond "It's discrimination!  Discrimination bad!"  

[Peterkin]

BTW One court appointment, or one cabinet appointment, doesn't constitute discrimination against all those who were not appointed. If an entire identifiable group is absent from both court and cabinet, one has cause to question whether the reason is systemic discrimination. Each appointment has to come from one group and no other. If every group but one is considered, it's probably discrimination. If only one group is considered, it's certainly discrimination.

It the makeup of the body as a whole does not closely reflect the proportions in the general population, there can be many reasons, and these can be discovered with due diligence; a fair judgment can be brought, and possibly suggestion for improving the balance can be suggested.

Like, say: "Why not appoint a Black Woman to the Supreme Court?" "All right, if the judiciary committee agrees, I will." Something like that could happen.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Peterkin

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

If the point you were attempting to make was not precise enough, I suggest sharpening your pencil ( and thinking ).

 

Absolutely.
But I'm of the opinion that discrimination ( as J Biden's pre-announcement appeared to do ) is not the way to do it.
That is what created this mess to begin with.

Except once the culture of "fit" for a position has been set, folks that are similar to the prevailing composition will continue to be preferred/deemed more competent. This won't go away by simply saying that starting now we will stop discriminating.

 

[MigL]

I would suggest you re-read the entire thread, TheVat, but that isn't going to happen.

I will simply say, discrimination is NOT bad; it is done all the time in the process of choosing.
Discrimination on the basis of skin color, gender, religion, etc. IS bad, as a matter of fact, it is against the law.

J Biden's pre-announcement gave the impression ( whether warranted or not ) to some people, that he was choosing according to skin color and gender.
Those people are allowed their own perception, regardless of whether you think it is 'false outrage', political partisanship, or snowflakyness.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

But I'm of the opinion that discrimination ( as J Biden's pre-announcement appeared to do ) is not the way to do it.

*appeared to do only if you ignore pretty much all of the surrounding evidence.

1 minute ago, MigL said:

Discrimination on the basis of skin color, gender, religion, etc. IS bad, as a matter of fact, it is against the law.

It is, in fact, more subtle than this.

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

J Biden's pre-announcement gave the impression ( whether warranted or not ) to some people, that he was choosing according to skin color and gender.
Those people are allowed their own perception, regardless of whether you think it is 'false outrage', political partisanship, or snowflakyness.

And others are allowed to point out the bad-faith nature of this response. 

[MigL]

35 minutes ago, swansont said:

And others are allowed to point out the bad-faith nature of this response.

Please elaborate.
What exactly is 'bad faith' about perception ?
Perception is by its very nature, is highly subjective; how do you decide for others whether that personal subjective perception, is in 'bad faith' ?

Is this like "Free speech; as long as  I agree with what you say" ?

41 minutes ago, swansont said:

2 hours ago, MigL said:

But I'm of the opinion that discrimination ( as J Biden's pre-announcement appeared to do ) is not the way to do it.

*appeared to do only if you ignore pretty much all of the surrounding evidence.

* apeared NOT to do, only if you ignore what J Biden actually said.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

 The pro argument seems to be that having that panel look as diverse as possible increases public trust in the justice system.  And broadens the life experience base of the Court.  And contributes opinions that reflect a special awareness of the impact of the justice system on the ethnicity which, per capita, has the highest level of contact with the justice system.

That essentially is what I have ben trying to say but with much less finese. Well said and applicable to any democratic society with various ethnic numbers in reasonable proportions.

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

The con argument seems to be that....well, I'm having difficulty discerning anything beyond "It's discrimination!  Discrimination bad!"  

And how long has similar discrimination been going on since your country gained nationhood. The civil war says a lot about such previous discrimination.

[swansont]

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Please elaborate.
What exactly is 'bad faith' about perception ?
Perception is by its very nature, is highly subjective; how do you decide for others whether that personal subjective perception, is in 'bad faith' ?

It’s a bad faith position when it’s based on untruths. And as I quite clearly said response, I was not discussing the perception, so this is moot.

 

5 hours ago, MigL said:

 

* apeared NOT to do, only if you ignore what J Biden actually said.

And that’s the problem. By only focusing on what he said, as if it’s the only information out there, is the bad faith. You strip the speech from its context. Quotes without context can often look like they mean something very different. 

And it’s even worse because there’s an implied context which is very different from reality.

 

 

[Endy0816]

Every US citizen is qualified. Almost any selection criteria will be discriminatory in some sense.

I see this as simply the only way to make a break away from tradition that works in the US. Reagan made a similar promise regarding Sandra O'Connor. Country has to be dragged along kicking and screaming into the future.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Endy0816

[iNow]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

If the point you were attempting to make was not precise enough, I suggest sharpening your pencil ( and thinking ).

Did I stutter?

Your position fascinates me. Basically it’s this:

You think Biden made a great choice. You think she’ll be an excellent justice. You are glad the bench now better represents the American people. You acknowledge nearly all of the last several presidents have pre-announced a desire for a specific demographic group to get nominated. You acknowledge Biden acted in accordance with historical precedent. 

But you also think it was bad form because America is in a weird place right now and some people are upset thinking he wasn’t acting fairly and that “the left” have their heads in the sand and feel white men should feel sorry for history… despite the long standing precedent, and despite it being a good choice, and despite evidence she’ll be a thoughtful and cautious justice on the bench.