Republicans lecture first black woman nominated to Supreme Court

[LarrySR]

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/marsha-blackburn-lectures-first-black-221358503.html

 

The confirmation hearings for Ketanji Brown Jackson began on Monday and, as expected, Republicans were a little concerned about President Biden’s pick. (she’s black)
 Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) went so far as to suggest to Jackson, a Black woman, that white privilege doesn’t exist in America, a country where of the 114 justices to have been confirmed to sit on the highest court in the land, only two have been Black. 

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by LarrySR

[SunnyinBangrak]

1 minute ago, LarrySR said:

Republicans were a little concerned about President Biden’s pick. (she’s black)

You infer that Republicans were concerned about Biden's pick because she is black. That is flat out wrong. Republicans (and every single solitary person with a sense of fair play and justice) were concerned because only black people with a cervix were considered for the role. This means that every male or non-black person was excluded for the job solely on the basis of their gender and skin color. That is wrong. That is divisive. That is a disgrace.

 

President Biden pledged on the campaign trail — and, with Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s pending retirement, recently confirmed — that he would choose “the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.” Many Republicans have been quick to decry that promise as divisive or discriminatory, arguing that a nominee’s race or gender should not play a role in Biden’s selection process. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/15/biden-supreme-court-nominee-black/

 

6 minutes ago, LarrySR said:

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) went so far as to suggest to Jackson, a Black woman, that white privilege doesn’t exist in America, a country where of the 114 justices to have been confirmed to sit on the highest court in the land, only two have been Black. 

Sounds like fair comments. Unlike when the last Presidents picks were being discussed by the Democrats, who called one (without a shred of evidence) a gang rapist, and the other a religious nutcase. Despicable behavior I'm sure we all agree, and in no way comparable to the civilized way the GOP conducted themselves concerning Biden's divisive pick.

 

https://time.com/5407183/brett-kavanaugh-julie-swetnick-testimony/

[mtls2005]

8 minutes ago, LarrySR said:

only two have been Black. 

One of which, where to start, perhaps with a pubic hair on his can of coke?

 

Not to mention what, ~ 2,000 Senators, ~ 11 of which were or are black.

 

 

[sqwakvfr]

This is just Kabuki Theater.  50 Democrats, 50 Republican and of course VP Kamala(tie breaker).  The end. 

[JonnyF]

More race baiting nonsense.

 

Identity politics continues to divide and weaken the countries in which it festers.

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

More race baiting nonsense.

 

Identity politics continues to divide and weaken the countries in which it festers.

Its not really non sense to accept that as a white guy you have more of chance to do well in the world. It can't be explained by competence only. 

 

In my GF her company they (world wide international company) they did research white guys first asian woman came last. Just how it works part of it can be explained by certain traits others is just bias. 

 

Im not saying that I know how to solve it or that its racist per se but its a fact. 

[mtls2005]

9 minutes ago, JackGats said:

Two wrong reasons for any person to get a job.

Are they though?

 

For any job?

 

Should these remove you from consideration?

 

What if she's as qualified as any white male or female candidate?

 

And what if her experience makes her qualified?

 

Maybe you could look past your prejudices regarding Ms. Jackson's qualifications and experiences? You only mentioned her race and gender.

 

Jackson would bring vital experience to Supreme Court

 

"With the selection of this well-qualified candidate, Biden fulfilled a campaign promise to nominate a Black woman if a vacancy on the court opened. In so doing, the president seeks to add to the growing gender and racial diversity of a court that for the nation's first 180 years was the exclusive domain of white men."

 

https://www.theday.com/article/20220301/OP01/220309939

 

https://www.theday.com/nationworld-news/20220225/what-you-need-to-know-about-ketanji-brown-jackson-bidens-pick-for-supreme-court

 

[ricklev]

1 hour ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

You infer that Republicans were concerned about Biden's pick because she is black. That is flat out wrong. Republicans (and every single solitary person with a sense of fair play and justice) were concerned because only black people with a cervix were considered for the role. This means that every male or non-black person was excluded for the job solely on the basis of their gender and skin color. That is wrong. That is divisive. That is a disgrace.

 

President Biden pledged on the campaign trail — and, with Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s pending retirement, recently confirmed — that he would choose “the first Black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court.” Many Republicans have been quick to decry that promise as divisive or discriminatory, arguing that a nominee’s race or gender should not play a role in Biden’s selection process. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/15/biden-supreme-court-nominee-black/

 

Sounds like fair comments. Unlike when the last Presidents picks were being discussed by the Democrats, who called one (without a shred of evidence) a gang rapist, and the other a religious nutcase. Despicable behavior I'm sure we all agree, and in no way comparable to the civilized way the GOP conducted themselves concerning Biden's divisive pick.

 

https://time.com/5407183/brett-kavanaugh-julie-swetnick-testimony/

I don't believe for a minute that anyone really cares that he only considered a black woman.  Just another negative meaningless talking point to further divide the country for the sake of political power.   

[JonnyF]

7 minutes ago, robblok said:

Its not really non sense to accept that as a white guy you have more of chance to do well in the world. It can't be explained by competence only. 

 

In my GF her company they (world wide international company) they did research white guys first asian woman came last. Just how it works part of it can be explained by certain traits others is just bias. 

 

Im not saying that I know how to solve it or that its racist per se but its a fact. 

I disagree. Certainly as a white guy in most of Asia I have no more chance to do well than an Asian of equal status/education/ability. Having worked here for 14 years, I would argue it's more of a disadvantage in terms of available roles etc.

 

If over representation is because of bias, why are black guys over represented in certain highly paid sports like Basketball and (American) Football? Is it because of bias in team selection against white guys and Asians? Why do Asians do so well in certain fields at University? Are the lecturers biased towards Asians? 

 

In the company I work for (a large multinational), over half of the Thai management team are Asian women. I'm not crying about it, most of them are very good at their job. Finance, purchasing, sales and Customer service is dominated by women, production and warehousing tends to be more male dominated.

 

It's unrealistic to expect perfect representation of every race/gender in every field. Focusing on traits such as race and gender and trying to manufacture equal representation with positive descrimination is patrononizing to those under-represented. Just pick the best person for the job, if that results in more white people than black people then so be it. If that results in more black people than white people, so be it. More women than men? So be it.

 

Those blaming their race or gender for their lack of success tend to be lacking in other departments such as ability, diligence, determination etc. It's much easier to play the victim and blame someone else.

[Berkshire]

1 hour ago, sqwakvfr said:

This is just Kabuki Theater.  50 Democrats, 50 Republican and of course VP Kamala(tie breaker).  The end. 

Yeah, but these right wing nutters have to get their 15 minutes of fame.  And of course, raise money off it from other right wing nutters. 

[peter zwart]

A big disgrace that this is still a topic. Shame on you America. When will people learn that a color doesn't make the difference. It's the character inside.

[robblok]

34 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

I disagree. Certainly as a white guy in most of Asia I have no more chance to do well than an Asian of equal status/education/ability. Having worked here for 14 years, I would argue it's more of a disadvantage in terms of available roles etc.

 

If over representation is because of bias, why are black guys over represented in certain highly paid sports like Basketball and (American) Football? Is it because of bias in team selection against white guys and Asians? Why do Asians do so well in certain fields at University? Are the lecturers biased towards Asians? 

 

In the company I work for (a large multinational), over half of the Thai management team are Asian women. I'm not crying about it, most of them are very good at their job. Finance, purchasing, sales and Customer service is dominated by women, production and warehousing tends to be more male dominated.

 

It's unrealistic to expect perfect representation of every race/gender in every field. Focusing on traits such as race and gender and trying to manufacture equal representation with positive descrimination is patrononizing to those under-represented. Just pick the best person for the job, if that results in more white people than black people then so be it. If that results in more black people than white people, so be it. More women than men? So be it.

 

Those blaming their race or gender for their lack of success tend to be lacking in other departments such as ability, diligence, determination etc. It's much easier to play the victim and blame someone else.

I don't 100% disagree with you but taking blacks in sports is a bit misleading. I mean sports its purely based on performance. In jobs people often stay alive because of their friends network. That does not happen in sports.

 

Sure some traits will help people, asians for instance are not as good at presenting themselves like whites they are more conservative (that is what research showed in her company). So they are missing a skill. Does not mean they are worse they just miss the skill to sell themselves properly.

 

I also don't think that there should be equal amounts of males females whites blacks, it should be based on performance and so on. But still when the hiring person is white they will hire whites if equal performance.

 

In my country we had an experiment with anonymous job letters. Before people with muslim names hardly got invited for jobs after they did that experiment they were invited more. So there is a bias. Its just a fact of life.

[sqwakvfr]

4 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Yeah, but these right wing nutters have to get their 15 minutes of fame.  And of course, raise money off it from other right wing nutters. 

Which Republican Senators are "right wing nutters"?  Then are the Democrat Senators who questioned Kavanagh "left wing nutters"?   So far this confirmation hearings appears to be civil(so far?).  

[Berkshire]

11 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Which Republican Senators are "right wing nutters"?  Then are the Democrat Senators who questioned Kavanagh "left wing nutters"?   So far this confirmation hearings appears to be civil(so far?).  

Did you even bother to read the OP?  Her name is right there.  Then there's whacky Josh Hawley.  And slimey Ted Cruz.  Many more, but you get the picture. 

[ozimoron]

46 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Which Republican Senators are "right wing nutters"?  Then are the Democrat Senators who questioned Kavanagh "left wing nutters"?   So far this confirmation hearings appears to be civil(so far?).  

not really that civil

 

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by ozimoron

[sqwakvfr]

2 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Did you even bother to read the OP?  Her name is right there.  Then there's whacky Josh Hawley.  And slimey Ted Cruz.  Many more, but you get the picture. 

Oh, I got it . Only the Republicans can be "nutters and slimey".  So the confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh was civil and not "slimey"?  I would agree about Cruz(he is weird) but I would disagree about Josh Hawley.  Of course Chick Schumer is always objective and fair? Also, Elizabeth Warren has been the model of consistency and objectivity?  

[LarrySR]

23 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Oh, I got it . Only the Republicans can be "nutters and slimey".  So the confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh was civil and not "slimey"?  I would agree about Cruz(he is weird) but I would disagree about Josh Hawley.  Of course Chick Schumer is always objective and fair? Also, Elizabeth Warren has been the model of consistency and objectivity?  

Republicans are proudly deplorable. That would include slimey nutters, No?

Fact is, in 2020 the Republicans delegates did not go through the usual process of deliberating over policies and principles to determine what the party stands for in 2020.They ran solely as deplorable. 

Edited March 22, 2022 by LarrySR

[ozimoron]

58 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

Oh, I got it . Only the Republicans can be "nutters and slimey".  So the confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh was civil and not "slimey"?  I would agree about Cruz(he is weird) but I would disagree about Josh Hawley.  Of course Chick Schumer is always objective and fair? Also, Elizabeth Warren has been the model of consistency and objectivity?  

Kavanaugh was accused of sexual misconduct or rape by an actual victim. Blackburn is accusing Jackson of wanting to introduce "critical race theory" into schools and protect pedophiles. There is no equivalence and you are engaging in whataboutery. There is no question that Blackburn's diatribe in uncivil, or worse. The term critical race theory is nothing more than dog whistling to racists.

Edited March 22, 2022 by ozimoron

[impulse]

9 hours ago, robblok said:

Its not really non sense to accept that as a white guy you have more of chance to do well in the world. It can't be explained by competence only. 

Yes, it can be explained by competence.  Competence is a combination of innate ability, education, attitude, and experience.  I don't doubt the racial equality of innate abilities. 

 

I was born into a neighborhood and culture that values education and lawfulness.  Black kids that grew up in my neighborhood are doing quite well for themselves.  Unfortunately, most black kids aren't born into those neighborhoods and culture. 

 

Any employer in the USA who posts a job for a specific race and gender would be up on charges.  And that's precisely what Biden has done.  Repeatedly.

Edited March 22, 2022 by impulse

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

Yes, it can be explained by competence.  I was born into a neighborhood and culture that values education and lawfulness.  Black kids that grew up in my neighborhood are doing quite well for themselves.  Unfortunately, most black kids aren't born into those neighborhoods and culture.  

 

Any employer in the USA who posts a job for a specific race and gender would be up on charges.  And that's precisely what Biden has done.  Repeatedly.

Firstly, he has nominated a person. Confirmation is made by the whole US Senate. Secondly, he is attempting to balance the SC similar to the way that juries are meant to be demographically balanced. Thirdly, it's far more than just a job. Finally, give it a rest, you are just attacking her because she's a black woman without basis. How do I know? You have no basis for considering that any other person would be any better for the nomination so you can't have a genuine motive.

[ozimoron]

 

[sqwakvfr]

25 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Kavanaugh was accused of sexual misconduct or rape by an actual victim. Blackburn is accusing Jackson of wanting to introduce "critical race theory" into schools and protect pedophiles. There is no equivalence and you are engaging in whataboutery. There is no question that Blackburn's diatribe in uncivil, or worse. The term critical race theory is nothing more than dog whistling to racists.

So the appropriate place to adjudicate a 35 year old accusation is the confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court Nominee.  I am not equivocating.  In the end Supreme Court Confirmation hearings  usually turn political.  Anyone recall the hearing for Bork, Thomas, and Garland?  In the end it is a done deal: 50-50+VP Tie breaker. 

[impulse]

On 3/22/2022 at 6:25 PM, ozimoron said:

Firstly, he has nominated a person. Confirmation is made by the whole US Senate. Secondly, he is attempting to balance the SC similar to the way that juries are meant to be demographically balanced. Thirdly, it's far more than just a job. Finally, give it a rest, you are just attacking her because she's a black woman without basis. How do I know? You have no basis for considering that any other person would be any better for the nomination so you can't have a genuine motive.

I have absolutely no opinion on the nominee.  I object to the illegal, discriminatory exclusion of everyone who isn't black and female.  No company in the USA is allowed to hire based on race and gender.  What kind of example does it set when the gub'ment does just that?

 

 

[ozimoron]

On 3/22/2022 at 6:36 PM, impulse said:

I have absolutely no opinion on the nominee.  I object to the illegal, discriminatory exclusion of everyone who isn't black and female.  No company in the USA is allowed to hire based on race and gender.  What kind of example does it set when the gub'ment does just that?

 

 It's laughable how many on the right try to disguise their bias with false claims of "color blindness" and other dog whistles. At least just admit you are right biased. But anyway, we can play that game.

[ozimoron]

45 minutes ago, sqwakvfr said:

So the appropriate place to adjudicate a 35 year old accusation is the confirmation hearing for a Supreme Court Nominee.  I am not equivocating.  In the end Supreme Court Confirmation hearings  usually turn political.  Anyone recall the hearing for Bork, Thomas, and Garland?  In the end it is a done deal: 50-50+VP Tie breaker. 

Kavanagh and Barrett were likewise 50/50 splits, or close to it. SC justices are the one time where a consensus pick should be mandatory. Then we wouldn't get the same kind of flawed and outright corrupt decisions that we are seeing now. Look at how many cases are being decided on straight political divisions. In any case, Jackson will get a decent Republican vote in the Senate.

Edited March 22, 2022 by ozimoron

[bendejo]

9 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

Anyone recall the hearing for Bork, Thomas, and Garland?

Garland did not get a SC hearing, the Lord of the Senate would not allow it.  And it had nothing to do with Garland's standing or history.  "Ten months is too close to an election."  Four years later the same guy has a new justice in there within weeks prior to an election, and her predecessor was not even buried yet. 

 

There is no 50-50 at the moment, the GOP has two well-compensated ringers across the aisle giving them an edge. 

 

KBJ is quite the lady, sitting there with her hands clasped and keeping a pleasant facial expression while having to hear all this [deleted].  The slightest adverse reaction will be followed by cries of "black rage!"  But it seems to be ok to lie during these SC hearings, the last three appointees did so (in obvious fashion) and were approved.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by bendejo

[mtls2005]

On June 14, 2021, the United States Senate confirmed Jackson in a 53–44 vote. Republican senators Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham and Lisa Murkowski joined all Democrats in voting to confirm her nomination. She received her judicial commission on June 17, 2021.

 

What changed?

 

 

Ted Cruz: “Do you agree with this book that is being taught with kids that babies are racist?” Cruz asked in front of a blown-up poster of one of the book’s pages.

Jackson paused for several seconds. “I do not believe that any child should be made to feel as though they are racist, or as though they are not valued, or as though they are less than,… that they are victims, that they are oppressors,” Jackson said. “I don’t believe in any of that.”

 

 

On that famous Canadian, Rafael Cruz:

 

Matthew Dowd: I will say this again having worked with Ted Cruz in 2000 campaign:  when people asked me why do folks take such an instant dislike to cruz, my answer was it saves time.

 

 

 

[mtls2005]

And who can forget the white guy, who can scream, cry and claim to be a victim...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-QpXVV6qLk

 

 

Can you just imagine if the current nominee did such a thing?

 

 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

Classes legally protected against discriminarion in the U.S.:

1. Age
2. Gender
3. Race
4. Disability
5. Religion or belief
6. Sexual orientation
7. Gender reassignment
8. Marriage or civil partnerships
9. Pregnancy and maternity

.

What these are supposed to be are signposts we use to remind ourselves not to unfairly discriminate Against  someone.

 

But they should never.... EVER... be used as the template for Selecting For  someone! 

 

Why? - - - - - Because it's just another form of discrimination!

 

Discriminating Against  and Selecting For........ based on these Protected Classes........ are equally egregious forms of discrimination!

 

If Biden had said during his nomination, "I am proud to be able to nominate our very first black woman to the highest court in the land," that would have been one thing.

 

But that's not what he did.

 

He announced beforehand  that this was the ONLY category he was choosing from............ and that was wrong, plain wrong. 

 

Being a black woman should have never been used as a reason to NOT to choose or consider her.  But neither should they have been used as a filter to eliminate all other qualified candidates.

This was a significant gaff on Biden's part. When he chose to do it this way---using Protected Classes to Select For---he theoretically eliminated 93% of all qualified candidates*........ simply because they aren't "Black Women!" That makes his process egregiously discriminatory. 

. 

. 

*(Based on general population stats, not "qualified jurists." If based on "qualified jurists," it's undoubtedly even worse!) 

 

Cheers! 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2022 by KanchanaburiGuy

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Classes legally protected against discriminarion in the U.S.:

1. Age
2. Gender
3. Race
4. Disability
5. Religion or belief
6. Sexual orientation
7. Gender reassignment
8. Marriage or civil partnerships
9. Pregnancy and maternity

.

What these are supposed to be are signposts we use to remind ourselves not to unfairly discriminate Against  someone.

 

But they should never.... EVER... be used as the template for Selecting For  someone! 

 

Why? - - - - - Because it's just another form of discrimination!

 

Discriminating Against  and Selecting For........ based on these Protected Classes........ are equally egregious forms of discrimination!

 

If Biden had said during his nomination, "I am proud to be able to nominate our very first black woman to the highest court in the land," that would have been one thing.

 

But that's not what he did.

 

He announced beforehand  that this was the ONLY category he was choosing from............ and that was wrong, plain wrong. 

 

Being a black woman should have never been used as a reason to NOT to choose or consider her.  But neither should they have been used as a filter to eliminate all other qualified candidates.

This was a significant gaff on Biden's part. When he chose to do it this way---using Protected Classes to Select For---he theoretically eliminated 93% of all qualified candidates*........ simply because they aren't "Black Women!" That makes his process egregiously discriminatory. 

. 

. 

*(Based on general population stats, not "qualified jurists." If based on "qualified jurists," it's undoubtedly even worse!) 

 

Cheers! 

 

 

What was he supposed to do, pick a candidate by lottery? Do you think any SC nominee in history has ever been the most qualified candidate?