Republicans lecture first black woman nominated to Supreme Court

[onthedarkside]

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

 

[impulse]

18 hours ago, bendejo said:

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.

Regardless of how well she's doing, the fact remains that she was selected to the exclusion of everyone that isn't black and female.  And it's against the law in the USA to discriminate based on gender or race.

 

[ozimoron]

3 minutes ago, impulse said:

Regardless of how well she's doing, the fact remains that she was selected to the exclusion of everyone that isn't black and female.  And it's against the law in the USA to discriminate based on gender or race.

 

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.

[Credo]

On 3/21/2022 at 7:18 PM, JackGats said:

1) because she's female

2) because she's black.

 

Two wrong reasons for any person to get a job.

 

So, it's wrong to nominate a female?  A black?  Wow, and you wonder why some conservatives get a bad name.   

The idea of a black woman being nominated is simply an idea whose time has come.  And listening to this particular lady, it's pretty clear she is a reasonable, level-headed person.  I didn't see her start crying or screaming she liked beer, so that's a good start.

 

Now if we compare her record to Barrett, this one has been an active prosecutor and defense attorney.  She's also been a judge.  Barrett, on the other hand, has never tried a case.   

 

According to the Bar Association:

 

As of Jan. 1, 2020, there were 1,328,692 active lawyers in the U.S., up roughly 10% in the past decade. However, primary drivers of growth continue to be white men and, to a lesser extent, white women. These groups remain overrepresented in the legal profession compared to their presence in the overall U.S. population, according to the ABA National Lawyer Population Survey. Currently, 86% of lawyers are non-Hispanic white people. In comparison, roughly 60% of U.S. residents are non-Hispanic white people.

https://www.2civility.org/aba-profile-of-the-legal-profession-diversity-and-well-being/

 

 

[impulse]

Just now, 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.

If only he had not come out before hand and specifically stated his intention, and only interviewed people who fit the (illegal) criteria he publicly stated.

It'll be interesting to see if there's a legal appeal if she's confirmed.

 

If you or I posted a job stating that only black women need apply, we'd be up on charges.

[JeffersLos]

On 3/22/2022 at 9:18 AM, JackGats said:

1) because she's female

2) because she's black.

 

Two wrong reasons for any person to get a job.

 

What if the job is to play a black female in a movie? 

[ozimoron]

9 minutes ago, impulse said:

If only he had not come out before hand and specifically stated his intention, and only interviewed people who fit the (illegal) criteria he publicly stated.

It'll be interesting to see if there's a legal appeal if she's confirmed.

 

If you or I posted a job stating that only black women need apply, we'd be up on charges.

How would you determine that any person was better qualified? You'd need to do that at a minimum. The previous guy did exactly the same but somehow you ignore that.

 

Trump vows to nominate a woman for US supreme court vacancy within a week.

 

“I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/20/trump-vows-to-nominate-a-woman-for-us-supreme-court-vacancy-within-a-week

Edited March 23, 2022 by ozimoron

[impulse]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

How would you determine that any person was better qualified? You'd need to do that at a minimum.

You're missing the point. 

 

He declared, ahead of time, that he was going to select a candidate based on race and gender.  In the USA, that is illegal discrimination. Full stop.

 

[ozimoron]

Just now, impulse said:

You're missing the point. 

 

He declared, ahead of time, that he was going to select a candidate based on race and gender.  In the USA, that is illegal discrimination. Full stop.

 

so did Trump.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

59 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

so did Trump.

 

Biden was simply signaling that he wanted, and America deserved, to bring some better balance to the high court...  which certainly wasn't achieved by the prior president nominating and getting confirmed three staunch conservative white justices.

 

But I don't recall any of the complainers here now complaining back then that only white people were being chosen to fill the prior court vacancies...  Unless maybe they think that only white people are always the most qualified for the jobs.

 

And BTW, who really thinks that former President George Bush's nomination of Clarence Thomas back in 1991 represented the "most qualified" person available for the opening at the time?   Puleeze!!!!  Supreme Court justices get nominated and selected for all kinds of different reasons by both sides not only relating to legal qualifications.

 

"Trump appointed a smaller share of non-White federal judges than other recent presidents. About one-in-six of the judges appointed by Trump (16%) are Black, Hispanic, Asian or another race or ethnicity. That’s slightly below the proportion of non-White judges appointed by the last Republican president, George W. Bush (18%), and well below the share appointed by the last three Democratic presidents – Obama (36%), Clinton (25%) and Jimmy Carter (22%)."

 

"No Black woman has ever served on the Supreme Court."

 

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/01/13/how-trump-compares-with-other-recent-presidents-in-appointing-federal-judges/

 

 

[ozimoron]

Affirmative action is not illegal in the US contrary to what the low information extremists will have you believe.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action

Edited March 23, 2022 by ozimoron

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

 

In terms of history and precedent, it's worth recalling that Republican presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, who wasn't doing so well with women at the time, specifically promised to put a woman on the Supreme Court, and later did!

 

"Ronald Reagan, striving to refute charges that he is insensitive to women's rights, said today he would name a woman to "one of the first Supreme Court vacancies in my administration."

 

"It is time for a woman to sit among our highest jurists," Reagan said in a prepared statement to a news conference here. ...

Reagan appointed three persons to the state Supreme Court during the eight years he was governor of California. All were men."

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/10/15/reagan-pledges-he-would-name-a-woman-to-the-supreme-court/844817dc-27aa-4f5d-8e4f-0ab3a5e76865/

 

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

 

--Conservatives have attacked Biden for sticking by his promise to name a Black woman to the Supreme Court.

--But President Reagan did virtually the same thing Biden is now doing.

--The history of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's nomination is worth a closer examination.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-women-history-reagan-biden-nominees-2022-1

 

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

 

And on the issue of Biden's promise to nominate a black woman for the Supreme Court, given the history and context of things, I'd certainly concur with the author below:

 

"Particularly galling are the whines that white men are being discriminated against, excluded, and degraded by not being considered as Biden’s first Supreme Court nominee. The Court was established in 1789. It has had 115 justices, four have been women, two have been Black men, none has been a Black woman."

 

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2022/02/08/donald-trump-promised-he-wouldnt-nominate-a-black-woman-to-the-supreme-court/

 

 

[ozimoron]

45 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2022/02/08/donald-trump-promised-he-wouldnt-nominate-a-black-woman-to-the-supreme-court/

 

 

So what Trump did was discriminate against black women - which is against the law. What's not against the law is to discriminate for black women. The irony is painful but the far right will shrug it off.

[ozimoron]

[Senator Ossoff] asked Jackson to speak to one of her most famous rulings thus far: the one in which, ruling that Donald Trump could not block former White House counsel Don McGahn from congressional testimony, she wrote, “presidents are not kings.” In response, Jackson spoke at length about the separation of powers, explaining how the framers designed the U.S. government not to replicate a monarchy, and saying, in lines even Republicans would have to reach to criticize, “The separation of powers is crucial to liberty. It is what our country is founded on, and it’s important, as consistent with my judicial methodology, for each branch to operate within their own sphere. That means for me that judges can’t make law, judges shouldn’t be policymakers.

 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/3/23/2087614/-Ossoff-asks-Judge-Ketanji-Brown-Jackson-about-her-ruling-that-presidents-are-not-kings

[bendejo]

4 hours ago, impulse said:

He declared, ahead of time, that he was going to select a candidate based on race and gender.  In the USA, that is illegal discrimination. Full stop.

During the 1980 presidential campaign Saint Ronald of Reagan said he would put a woman on SCOTUS should an opening arise, and it would be a first.  And he did.  I don't recall such an argument being raised at the time.

 

 

[bendejo]

3 hours ago, ozimoron said:

So what Trump did was discriminate against black women - which is against the law. What's not against the law is to discriminate for black women. The irony is painful but the far right will shrug it off.

The former president in question did say that he expected allegiance from judicial appointees (and not exclusively the ones on SCOTUS) should a decision regarding himself come their way, y'know, like a stolen election.  If he is reinstalled in the WH is it possible he will seek to remove those treacherous ingrates?  Never before has a POTUS provided such an amount of entertainment value.

Edited March 23, 2022 by onthedarkside
unsourced "rumor" comment removed

[Jingthing]

52 minutes ago, bendejo said:

During the 1980 presidential campaign Saint Ronald of Reagan said he would put a woman on SCOTUS should an opening arise, and it would be a first.  And he did.  I don't recall such an argument being raised at the time.

 

 

I don't either.

Perhaps the black woman thing is a bridge too far for the white nationalist party of trump. 

I think people are a little confused about scotus picks.

There are hundreds perhaps thousands of people that are qualified. 

There is no such thing as objectively best qualified for such a job.

There are too many subjective factors.

Presidents try to pick justices that they think / hope will be more in line with their philosophy AND have a high chance of being confirmed.

Preferably on the younger side as it's a lifetime job.

Edited March 23, 2022 by Jingthing

[impulse]

7 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Affirmative action is not illegal in the US contrary to what the low information extremists will have you believe.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action

Yup, it's legal.  In some states.  With thousands of pages of case law to detail when and how, and what's not legal.

 

I still dare you to publish a help wanted ad indicating "only black women need apply".

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, impulse said:

Yup, it's legal.  In some states.  With thousands of pages of case law to detail when and how, and what's not legal.

 

I still dare you to publish a help wanted ad indicating "only black women need apply".

The SC nomination is not a states issue. The President is legally permitted to nominate a person of his choice and, once again for those who fail to comprehend, affirmative action is not illegal in Federal law.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

15 hours ago, ozimoron said:

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?

He was supposed to make a choice WITHOUT using blatant discrimination as his first and primary filter. 

 

At any given time, there are many people qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. There is never such a thing as a single "best" candidate. There are simply too many facets to the job......... and aspects to the people in question......... for there ever to be a single "best." 

 

But that doesn't mean that filtering candidates out solely because they DON'T belong to a Protected Class......... is suddenly okay. 

 

Either way, filtering based on Protected Classes is wrong----whether it's used to filter out a minority............ or to filter out the majority. 

 

Cheers! 

[ozimoron]

Just now, KanchanaburiGuy said:

He was supposed to make a choice WITHOUT using blatant discrimination as his first and primary filter. 

 

At any given time, there are many people qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. There is never such a thing as a single "best" candidate. There are simply too many facets to the job......... and aspects to the people in question......... for there ever to be a single "best." 

 

But that doesn't mean that filtering candidates out solely because they DON'T belong to a Protected Class......... is suddenly okay. 

 

Either way, filtering based on Protected Classes is wrong----whether it's used to filter out a minority............ or to filter out the majority. 

 

Cheers! 

Which president ever did that? Trump explicitly said he would not pick a woman. You admit that it's impossible to pick the "best" so that leaves no basis for complaining about picking a demographic which has never been represented on the supreme court and is demonstrably at least as capable as the partisan hacks and outright corrupt judges already there.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

12 hours ago, 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.

Are you aware that if she becomes a Supreme Court Justice, blacks will then be significantly OVER-represented in the Supreme Court? 

 

Blacks make up 13.4% of the population. One Justice represents 11.1% of the court. With only 9 Justices, that's as close as it can get. (If we had, say, 20 Justices, that could be fine-tuned a little better!) We've had one black Justice---as close to "fair & balanced" representation as we can get!---for a very long time! 

 

If this nominee gets confirmed, blacks, who make up 13.4% of the population, will represent 22.2% of the court.----50% greater than their slice of the General Public!

 

If the question is, as you say, "balance and diversity," this choice creates a pretty significant IMbalance. With only 9 seats, having one black Justice is as close to being "balanced" as it can be. And that's already been the case for a very long time! 

 

If the goal was "balance and diversity," then why wasn't "Asian Woman" the chosen discriminatory filter? Do you see ASIANS represented on the court, anywhere? 

. 

. 

See? Even if you try to ascribe noble intentions to Biden's selection process........... he STILL did it wrong! 

 

555

 

Cheers!

 

 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

13 hours ago, ozimoron said:

How would you determine that any person was better qualified? You'd need to do that at a minimum. The previous guy did exactly the same but somehow you ignore that.

 

Trump vows to nominate a woman for US supreme court vacancy within a week.

 

“I think it should be a woman because I actually like women much more than men.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/20/trump-vows-to-nominate-a-woman-for-us-supreme-court-vacancy-within-a-week

Unless you believe two wrongs make a right, what Trump did has nothing to do with this discussion. 

 

On the other hand, did you see the makeup of Biden's Short List for this position? The White House put out Biden's Short List of 4 possible nominees. ALL FOUR OF THEM were Black Women.

 

All things being equal (555!), the likelihood of finding ONE Black Woman on this list is about 1 in 5 (based on representation of Black Women in the general population.)

 

Two would be surprising.

Three would be astounding.

But ALL FOUR? 

 

Coincidentally, the representation of Black Women in America's general population is roughly the same as Aces in a deck of cards: 1 in 13.

 

Imagine pulling 4 cards out of the deck at random........ and you amazingly pull ALL FOUR ACES! 

 

Can it happen? Sure! Do it 1,000 times and you might do it ONCE. 

 

Well, that is the likelihood that Biden came up with ONLY four Black Women on his Short List of candidates......... without the game being rigged! 

 

Is it possible? Sure. But then, Biden SAID he was going to rig the game, beforehand, right?........... 555

 

Cheers!

[Chomper Higgot]

On 3/23/2022 at 3:22 AM, bendejo said:

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.

 

 

Harris nailed Kavanaugh with a direct challenge for him to purger himself on record, the idiot Kavanaugh walked right into the trap.

 

She’s got that in her back pocket and she will use it.

[Chomper Higgot]

Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson brings to the SCOTUS her experience of working as a public defender, representing the poor and those without the means to provide for their own defense council.

 

This is experience no other sitting SCOTUS judge has and is therefore a significant contribution to the court’s makeup.

 

The poor are the most effected by the Justice system, it is high time somebody with experience representing the poor sat on the SCOTUS bench.

 

 

Edited March 24, 2022 by Chomper Higgot

[KanchanaburiGuy]

13 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Affirmative action is not illegal in the US contrary to what the low information extremists will have you believe.

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/affirmative_action

Both Discriminating Against and Selecting For based on the Protected Classes SHOULD BE illegal. That our courts and politicians/legislators allow it to be otherwise is disappointing in the extreme. 

 

As for Affirmative Action being legal, yes it is. Just as Jim Crow laws were legal....... until they weren't. And Slavery was legal....... until it wasn't. And consuming alcohol was legal........ until it wasn't....... and then was again! Just like child labor was legal........ until it wasn't. And labortion was legal...... and then it wasn't........ and then it was........ and then it wasn't........... and then it was, again........ and now is moving toward being illegal, again! 

 

Things change, and usually they change in a positive direction. But sometimes it takes a long time for us to realize we've allowed a HUGE MISTAKE to stay on the books for way too long. 

 

Using one form of discrimination to try to remedy another form of discrimination......... is like using Chemo to treat Cancer. You do it....... for a while........ because it works......... for a while. But the Chemo will kill you just as surely as the Cancer will.......... and you've eventually got to STOP! If you don't, the Chemo effectively becomes the new Cancer! 

 

That's Affirmative Action. It's the new Cancer being used to replace the old Cancer. And NOW would be an excellent time to STOP! 

 

Cheers! 

 

 

 

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Unless you believe two wrongs make a right, what Trump did has nothing to do with this discussion. 

 

On the other hand, did you see the makeup of Biden's Short List for this position? The White House put out Biden's Short List of 4 possible nominees. ALL FOUR OF THEM were Black Women.

 

All things being equal (555!), the likelihood of finding ONE Black Woman on this list is about 1 in 5 (based on representation of Black Women in the general population.)

 

Two would be surprising.

Three would be astounding.

But ALL FOUR? 

 

Coincidentally, the representation of Black Women in America's general population is roughly the same as Aces in a deck of cards: 1 in 13.

 

Imagine pulling 4 cards out of the deck at random........ and you amazingly pull ALL FOUR ACES! 

 

Can it happen? Sure! Do it 1,000 times and you might do it ONCE. 

 

Well, that is the likelihood that Biden came up with ONLY four Black Women on his Short List of candidates......... without the game being rigged! 

 

Is it possible? Sure. But then, Biden SAID he was going to rig the game, beforehand, right?........... 555

 

Cheers!

The point is we didn't see the usual suspects complaining when Trump installed Federation Society black money picks.

 

edit: and Thomas won't be around forever, Jackson will then be the only black and only woman. Even if blacks do get over-represented, it might make up a little for the massive under-representation over the decades.

Edited March 24, 2022 by ozimoron

[Will B Good]

On 3/23/2022 at 7:50 AM, mtls2005 said:

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.

Brilliant.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Either way, filtering based on Protected Classes is wrong----whether it's used to filter out a minority............ or to filter out the majority. 

But you're apparently OK with the U.S. Supreme Court's history of de facto "filtering" to be almost entirely white men...

[KhunLA]

39 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Even if blacks do get over-represented, it might make up a little for the massive under-representation over the decades.

Blacks only make up 13.4 % of USA population, so very far from being under represented.

Edited March 24, 2022 by KhunLA