Republicans lecture first black woman nominated to Supreme Court

[ozimoron]

14 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

@ozimoron

What you said yesterday:

"Show where he did. He clearly and self evidently announced he would pick a black woman AFTER reviewing all suggested candidates. "
"Got evidence or just racial animus? "
"Show me any falsehood in my posts. "

After being confronted with what every other single BM already knows, you still do not acknowledge your incorrect statements. It's looking more like you are deliberately lying. And not surprisingly, quite a few others are tolerating your lies, because you're on the correct team and all that. One more time for you and others:

“I have made no decision except one,” Biden said. "The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity and that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court."

You have still failed to point to a false statement I have made.

[Atlantis]

On 3/23/2022 at 9:53 PM, ozimoron said:

Complete rubbish. Nobody was excluded. She was selected because Biden wanted balance and diversity on the court and she was well qualified. Nobody can point to any person, regardless of race or creed who is better qualified. Nobody was discriminated against. All I see here is far right dog whistling.

You asked for evidence, I gave you the dated CBS news article, reporting verbatim what Biden himself said.
  All men were excluded.
  All non-Blacks were excluded.

 

Many other BM on your side of the debate have made arguments in support of the nomination despite these two facts. That they have remained silent on this ... claim of yours is quite sad.
 

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/biden-supreme-court-black-woman-pick-february/

[Fat is a type of crazy]

Most people agree that blacks had it bad for a long time and the only debate is whether in 2022 there is an ongoing need for positive discrimination. 

On the CRT thing most agree that teaching America's failings, along with the many triumphs and successes, is appropriate. Some of the interpretations of CRT were a bit over the top, in terms of racism in 2022,  but the idea of teaching kids balanced history is not that controversial.

On gender issues, most agree with letting people be who they want to be, but might draw the line at coming to conclusions on gender as fact e.g.  teaching young kids about what is known, or what is not known, when aspects of gender fluidity are scientifically controversial.

The point being that the difference between opinions on such topics is not that large, but those differences are often exploited, and exaggerated by politicians and the media, for personal gain. 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by Fat is a type of crazy

[ozimoron]

11 hours ago, Atlantis said:

You asked for evidence, I gave you the dated CBS news article, reporting verbatim what Biden himself said.
  All men were excluded.
  All non-Blacks were excluded.

 

Many other BM on your side of the debate have made arguments in support of the nomination despite these two facts. That they have remained silent on this ... claim of yours is quite sad.
 

https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/biden-supreme-court-black-woman-pick-february/

Show where Biden said either of those things. He said he would nominate a black woman as is his right to do so. By your logic, he stated that he would not nominate a left handed dwarf with 6 toes. It's a non sequiter and false equivalency.

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, Atlantis said:

@ozimoron

What you said yesterday:

"Show where he did. He clearly and self evidently announced he would pick a black woman AFTER reviewing all suggested candidates. "
"Got evidence or just racial animus? "
"Show me any falsehood in my posts. "

After being confronted with what every other single BM already knows, you still do not acknowledge your incorrect statements.

 

One more time for you and others:

“I have made no decision except one,” Biden said. "The person I will nominate will be someone with extraordinary qualifications, character, experience and integrity and that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court."

And he kept his campaign promise.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, Atlantis said:

"There is no such thing as the objectively best qualified person for the job." Correct. It has long been a highly partisan affair.
"the party with a fondness waving the Confederate Flag, don’t like his choice." Oh how brave of you!

Btw, isn't it against your values to smear an entire group? Or in your moral universe, is there a Good Book that makes an exception for the only other major political party in the US?

The Constitution places the nomination of appointees to the SCOTUS firmly in the hands of the President.

 

This President made a campaign promise to appoint a highly qualified black female to the SCOTUS, he’s done exactly what he he promised he would do.

 

The histrionics from the other side of the house is where you’ll find your ‘partisan’ pantomime.

 

I have no problem holding a whole party to account for behavior the whole party supports.

[ozimoron]

11 hours ago, Atlantis said:

 

Biden declared he would nominate a black woman. That is is quite simply not the logical equivalent of saying he would not nominate a man or a white person. That is a logical fallacy. This kind of false equivalence is the stock in trade of those who don't have a cogent argument.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

You are unable to show me a categorical statement I have made which is false. Biden declared he would nominate a black woman. That is is quite simply not the logical equivalent of saying he would not nominate a man or a white person. That is a logical fallacy. This kind of false equivalence is the stock in trade of those who don't have a cogent argument.

It’s irrelevant really.

 

She’s highly qualified and she’s nominated.

 

 

[Scott]

A post with false or misleading information has been removed.  The thread isn't about Affirmative Action and Affirmative Action is not only for non-whites.  

 

Also removed were a series of flame comment posts directed at fellow forum members.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

The way Biden has handled this USSC nomination is not significantly different than other presidents who have gone before him, Trump and Reagan included, among others:

 

Joe Biden isn’t first to prioritize race, gender in picking SCOTUS nominee, as Sean Hannity claimed

"President Donald Trump vowed to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court before appointing Justice Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. Ronald Reagan made a similar promise as a candidate to nominate the first woman, then followed through as president. Other presidents have clearly indicated preferences for candidates of specific ethnicities or religions."

...

Nikolas Bowie, assistant professor of law at Harvard Law School, said Hannity’s claim "ignores the reality that from 1789 through 1967, every president made race and gender a defining factor in their selection process by refusing to nominate anyone other than a white man."

 

(more)

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jan/28/sean-hannity/joe-biden-isnt-first-prioritize-race-gender-pickin/

 

And there are other similar past USSC nomination instances cited in the full report, including one by Dwight Eisenhower.

 

To those complaining this is some kind of unprecedented thing, read the factual history of USSC nominations, and get over it!

 

 

Edited March 25, 2022 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

And further regarding false claims by the senator from Tennessee:

 

Tenn. Sen. Marsha Blackburn wrong about Ketanji Brown Jackson and critical race theory

 

"In a 2015 speech about sentencing policy, Jackson did not say critical race theory should be considered by judges in making decisions on the bench. Jackson said that sentencing policy is interesting on an intellectual level because it “melds together myriad types of law,” as well as critical race theory, negotiations and contracts.

...

We rate Blackburn’s statement False."

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/mar/22/marsha-blackburn/tenn-sen-marsha-blackburn-wrong-about-ketanji-brow/

 

 

[ozimoron]

It must suck to have no empathy. That just leaves narcissism I guess.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Empathy is not a quality many Republican senators want to see in the next Supreme Court justice.

Traditionally considered an admirable attribute, the ability to empathize with another’s plight has become a touchstone for GOP opposition to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

 

It’s not the first time the concept of empathy has been wielded as a disqualifying weapon against a nominee for the high court.

 

https://apnews.com/article/biden-us-supreme-court-race-and-ethnicity-congress-651d3cb661368e419dd673579e7feaf9

Edited March 25, 2022 by ozimoron

[Jingthing]

Game Over!

 

May she judge justly at the SCOTUS.

 

KBJ: Manchin support likely ensures her confirmation to Supreme Court (usatoday.com)

 

 

Quote

 

Manchin to vote for Ketanji Brown Jackson, likely ensuring she will be the first Black woman on Supreme Court

 

Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia said Friday that he intends to vote yes on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's nomination to the Supreme Court, effectively guaranteeing she will be confirmed and become the first Black woman to serve on the nation's highest court.

"After meeting with her, considering her record, and closely monitoring her testimony and questioning before the Senate Judiciary Committee this week, I have determined I intend to vote for her nomination to serve on the Supreme Court," Manchin said.

"I am confident Judge Jackson is supremely qualified and has the disposition necessary to serve as our nation’s next Supreme Court Justice," he added.

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Jackson’s hearings are over. Meet the 9 potential Senate swing votes.

"Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson is on a relatively smooth path to becoming the first Black woman on the Supreme Court after three days of Senate confirmation hearings that have run the gamut in tone, from tense to rowdy to emotionally supportive.

 

At the moment, Democrats expect Jackson to receive full support from their 50-member caucus — and that’s enough to get her confirmed. The biggest question, now, appears to be whether her final confirmation vote will be bipartisan.

...

Indeed, Jackson got three Republican votes last year when she was confirmed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. One of those Republicans is heavily hinting he will oppose Jackson’s nomination, while the other two have yet to announce a decision.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/24/kentanji-brown-jackson-confirmation-swing-votes-senate-00018883

 

Thus virtually the entire Republican contingent in the U.S. Senate is likely to oppose the nomination of the first black woman ever to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court...  That's who they are.

 

By comparison, Clarence Thomas (of all nominees, carrying the weight of an alleged sexual harassment scandal) was confirmed by a Senate vote of 52-48, but that included 11 supporting Democratic senators along with 41 Republicans.

 

All of the above is a good indication of why the mid-term House and Senate elections will have such an important influence on the years ahead, given the current razor-thin margin in the Senate.

 

--------------------------------

 

"The 2022 United States Senate elections will be held on November 8, 2022, with 34 of the 100 seats in the Senate being contested in regular elections, the winners of which will serve six-year terms in the United States Congress from January 3, 2023, to January 3, 2029."

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_United_States_Senate_elections

 

Plus one additional Senate special election seat.

 

PS Politico -  I'd hardly call MAYBE one or two Republican Senate votes out of the 50 seats they hold as "bipartisan" support.

Edited March 25, 2022 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[thaibeachlovers]

On 3/22/2022 at 3:02 PM, sqwakvfr said:

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

Perhaps only till the mid terms. That's going to be interesting!

[thaibeachlovers]

16 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

All of the above is a good indication of why the mid-term House and Senate elections will have such an important influence on the years ahead, given the current razor-thin margin in the Senate.

Indeed, and given the apparent unpopularity of Biden and Harris, plus the usual pattern of voting in midterms it's not looking good for the Democrats, IMO.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, ozimoron said:

It must suck to have no empathy. That just leaves narcissism I guess.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Empathy is not a quality many Republican senators want to see in the next Supreme Court justice.

Traditionally considered an admirable attribute, the ability to empathize with another’s plight has become a touchstone for GOP opposition to Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

 

It’s not the first time the concept of empathy has been wielded as a disqualifying weapon against a nominee for the high court.

 

https://apnews.com/article/biden-us-supreme-court-race-and-ethnicity-congress-651d3cb661368e419dd673579e7feaf9

I prefer impartiality in people that affect people's lives by their decisions. Empathy tends to sway the empathetic to decisions that may not be in the country's best interests.

[Mac Mickmanus]

14 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Biden declared he would nominate a black woman. That is is quite simply not the logical equivalent of saying he would not nominate a man or a white person. That is a logical fallacy. This kind of false equivalence is the stock in trade of those who don't have a cogent argument.

OK, so would Biden nominate a White person / Male person ?

[Jingthing]

21 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

OK, so would Biden nominate a White person / Male person ?

This pick is history. 
Later picks? Why not? 

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

This pick is history. 
Later picks? Why not? 

What about Asian Females ?

There should be an Asian Female as next SCOTUS after the Black one 

[Jingthing]

13 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

What about Asian Females ?

There should be an Asian Female as next SCOTUS after the Black one 

If you say so.

[bendejo]

I didn't realize the all-engrossing problem the US is dealing with these days is child pornography, and we all owe a debt of gratitude to the GOP for not only pointing this out, but for figuring out the solution to the problem is blocking this woman's nomination. 

[NOTE: irony alert]

Impressive that they didn't ask her if she had ever been on welfare, that's the usual GOP cudgel they save for Black women.

 

[bendejo]

On another SCOTUS angle, I suspect that a certain conservative justice may be off the bench soon, the one who may face the possibility of being the first to be forcibly removed due to his wife being a 1/6 celebrity.  I question the verity of his current health scare, it may be the start of a ruse to leave before being ejected in disgrace.  I would also think he'd try to run out the clock till the midterms in the hope that the GOP takes back the Senate, so he can be replaced with one of his own.  But this health scare could be real, and Mother Nature may take him to his final rest before then . . .

 

 

[ozimoron]

4 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

OK, so would Biden nominate a White person / Male person ?

what? do you think the next pick is going to be another black woman? He might pick a Latino, as being underrepresented. If whites were underrepresented he would 100% pick a white person. Do you not think so and why?

[ozimoron]

4 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I prefer impartiality in people that affect people's lives by their decisions. Empathy tends to sway the empathetic to decisions that may not be in the country's best interests.

This is a curious sentiment to be honest. I have always regarded lack of empathy as akin to a lack of vitamins or some other condition. In fact, I would think a judge who isn't capable of demonstrating empathy in regard to defendants shouldn't be qualified to sit on the bench. I am not trolling you, this is my actual belief about the human kind and is core to what separates society into the two approximate halves that we see now. We see presence or lack of that trait in many of the discussions in this forum, among others.

 

I completely reject the notion that having the ability to emphasize prevents objectivity. That's nonsense and just a talking point invented by those opposed to liberal justices. That specious argument also came up when Obama suggested it was important and even before then.

 

https://origins.osu.edu/index.php/history-news/how-empathy-makes-superior-judges-and-justice

 

"Far from conferring favoritism or setting law aside, as Obama’s critics contend, T.R. [Roosevelt] and Obama understood that empathy is often a prerequisite for impartiality."

 

"And imagine the national embarrassment America would have been spared in Korematsu v. United States, the case that sanctioned internment of loyal American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II, had the court followed Justice Robert Jackson’s empathetic dissent, which, unlike the majority opinion, tried to understand the impact of imposing a racially motivated penalty on innocent Americans."

 

 

Edited March 26, 2022 by ozimoron

[Jingthing]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

what? do you think the next pick is going to be another black woman? He might pick a Latino, as being underrepresented. If whites were underrepresented he would 100% pick a white person. Do you not think so and why?

I'd like to see a gay atheist Jew but I'm not holding my breath.

[ozimoron]

10 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I'd like to see a gay atheist Jew but I'm not holding my breath.

Actually, I think a native American should be next.

[Jingthing]

16 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Actually, I think a native American should be next.

Sure.

Weirdly Catholics are very overrrepresented.

[ozimoron]

33 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

 

Biden thinks she's "exceptionally qualified". That would mean he considers her the best qualified of all candidates and I've seen no argument that she isn't.

[onthedarkside]

A series of off-topic posts and replies have been removed.