Jump to content



Republicans lecture first black woman nominated to Supreme Court


Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by ozimoron
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by ozimoron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.