3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

selection has been race/gender biased since the founding of the SC?!

 

But of course, other people’s gender is another one of those fragility trigger things.

Your first sentence does kind of contradict the second sentence .

Insisting that a person must be of a certain gender for a job, then stating that those who focus on other peoples gender get "triggered" because of their "fragility" .

  Think about the contradiction there 

12 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Biden wouldn't have even won without black women.

It is still a Black Woman subordinate to a White Male .

In future there should be a Black Woman POTUS with a White Male running mate 

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.

 

It never seemed to bother you conservatives when the court was ALL WHITE and ALL MALE.

3 minutes ago, Nickelbeer said:

It never seemed to bother you conservatives when the court was ALL WHITE and ALL MALE.

Or as some call it the Tucker Carlson special.

6 minutes ago, Nickelbeer said:

It never seemed to bother you conservatives when the court was ALL WHITE and ALL MALE.

Because they were selected for the position because they were the best qualified for the job . 

  They didn't get the position because of their race and gender . 

IMO , the person most suited for the job, the one with the better qualifications and experience should get the job .

  People shouldn't get preferential treatment  base on their race or gender , that used to happen in Apartheid South African in the 1980's

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

If two requirements for that position is being Female  and also Black, that is going to rule out a lot of candidates for that position .

   What would be the situation if a White Male identified as a Black Female , would that then make her eligible  for the position ?

Literally thousands of people could equally fill that position. Most of them have come from a tiny pool of wingnuts nominated by a well funded special interest group dedicated to destroying secular government.

53 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It is still a Black Woman subordinate to a White Male .

In future there should be a Black Woman POTUS with a White Male running mate 

Nothing would change, why sweat it?

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It is still a Black Woman subordinate to a White Male .

In future there should be a Black Woman POTUS with a White Male running mate 

Judges will n the SCOTUS are not subordinate to anyone.

 

Your wish for the future is on its way.

A number of off-topic posts and trolling comments have been removed.

 

5 hours ago, Nickelbeer said:

It never seemed to bother you conservatives when the court was ALL WHITE and ALL MALE.

And two people with Thank Yous!

Wow. Let me break it down for the three of you + others.

1. I would guess it would indeed bother many people, including the poster to which you are referring, if a president had, ahead of time, proclaimed he will deliberately restrict the next SCOTUS pick to white males.

2. Decades ago when there was very real racial discrimination against black Americans in every part of life as well as restrictions on basic freedoms of all females...was Bad. No one is pushing back, except perhaps a straw man.

 

3. Picking a well-qualified black female from an open field (even if she isn't "the best" - whatever that means) is either absolutely fine (obviously) and delightful for people who makes identity politics the core of their belief system.
 

10 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

And two people with Thank Yous!

Wow. Let me break it down for the three of you + others.

1. I would guess it would indeed bother many people, including the poster to which you are referring, if a president had, ahead of time, proclaimed he will deliberately restrict the next SCOTUS pick to white males.

2. Decades ago when there was very real racial discrimination against black Americans in every part of life as well as restrictions on basic freedoms of all females...was Bad. No one is pushing back, except perhaps a straw man.

 

3. Picking a well-qualified black female from an open field (even if she isn't "the best" - whatever that means) is either absolutely fine (obviously) and delightful for people who makes identity politics the core of their belief system.
 

You mean exactly like Trump did?

 

Do you have any reason other than racial animus or political preference to suggest Jackson is unqualified or not the best person?

 

12 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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.

Yes.
Good.

And wouldn't it have been ßloody marvelous had Biden gone ahead and nominated her without first declaring that he was going to exclude all males and all non-blacks from consideration.


 

22 hours ago, Atlantis said:

 

Nobody was excluded. Biden obviously and self evidently considered everyone put to him and decided to pick a black woman from the suggested qualified candidates. Again, where is your evidence that she was unqualified. Where is your condemnation of Trump for explicitly excluding any woman from his first SC nomination?

 

1 minute ago, Atlantis said:

Yes.
Good.

And wouldn't it have been ßloody marvelous had Biden gone ahead and nominated her without first declaring that he was going to exclude all males and all non-blacks from consideration.


 

Show where he did. He clearly and self evidently announced he would pick a black woman AFTER reviewing all suggested candidates.

22 hours ago, ozimoron said:

You mean exactly like Trump did?

 

Do you have any reason other than racial animus or political preference to suggest Jackson is unqualified or not the best person?

 

So I point out 1) the extremity of the statements you made, mistakenly or otherwise and 2) blatant falsehoods in your posts, and that means you get to automatically project whatever-it-is-in-your-mind  ("racial animus" or "political preference") onto me?

I haven't even said I am against her candidacy / selection / person / track record.

You've shown time and time again you are not shy from being radically partisan in everything you comment on.

3 minutes ago, Atlantis said:

Who do you think you are talking to?

So I point out 1) the extremity of the statements you made, mistakenly or otherwise and 2) blatant falsehoods in your posts, and that means you get to automatically project whatever-it-is-in-your-mind  ("racial animus" or "political preference") onto me?

I haven't even said I am against her candidacy / selection / person / track record.

You've shown time and time again you are not shy from being radically partisan in everything you comment on. Stop. Projecting. Please.

I was complaining about your projecting. If you aren't against her candidacy and suitability then I'm at a loss to understand why your are complaining about Biden not picking the best candidate. You have put up noting to suggest that she isn't. Show me any falsehood in my posts.

21 hours ago, Atlantis said:

 

what part of "extraordinary qualifications" don't you understand? It's still self evident that others would have been suggested and he would have considered them. Biden isn't stupid, he has decades of senate experience. Unlike the previous one termer, he never said he would exclude anyone. Nothing that Biden has done contravenes any law.

I remember the chubby guy---whatever his name was---when he had the chance (even a very short time before the election, right mitch?---to select another SCJ, stated that he would 'choose the best woman'.  Pres Biden added one more criteria, but somehow that is an abomination.

 

As for the Hearings, it seems the Я Party is sending out trial balloons of what 'issue' it hopes to run on in the midterms in Nov.  It seems they think child p is the winning issue. Funny how josh hawley and the guy from Cuba (cruz?) are apoplectic that Judge Jackson didn't chemically neuter and put away those perps for life, 'somehow' forgetting they voted for THREE SCJs who issued the EXACT same range of sentences for the same crimes when they had bench authority. Didn't seem to bother them before, when a non-Dem was naming an SCJ.

 

Republican circus act senators degrading themselves with crass culture war provocations.

It's no wonder that the world doesn't look to the U.S. any more as a model to emulate.

 

Soon to be Justice Jackson emerges smelling like a rose.

 

Opinion | The Jackson confirmation hearings show the GOP in decay - The Washington Post

 

Quote

The Jackson confirmation hearings show a Republican Party in decay

 

6 hours ago, Atlantis said:

Yes.
Good.

And wouldn't it have been ßloody marvelous had Biden gone ahead and nominated her without first declaring that he was going to exclude all males and all non-blacks from consideration.


 

It’s very clear that he looked at the make up of the SCOTUS and decided it needed a highly qualified Black woman on the bench.

 

He chose a fabulously qualified candidate.

 

 

22 hours ago, Atlantis said:

 

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

 

It’s in the President’s purview to choose who he wants, the party with a fondness waving the Confederate Flag, don’t like his choice.

 

 

 

 

46 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s very clear that he looked at the make up of the SCOTUS and decided it needed a highly qualified Black woman on the bench.

 

He chose a fabulously qualified candidate.

 

 

It should be a concern to everyone that she claimed to know what a woman is you need to be a biologist. Could she be relied on to protect women's rights if such a case came before the supreme court? Is Biden a biologist to know he hired the black woman he promised his voters?

 

 

"In the 13th hour of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearing Tuesday, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asked the Supreme Court nominee: “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” 

Jackson, appearing confused, responded, "I’m not a biologist.” 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2022/03/24/marsha-blackburn-asked-ketanji-jackson-define-woman-science/7152439001/

 

I wonder whether participants here think she is very dumb or is she dishonest? hmmm. I can't imagine a more unsuitable candidate, and that's without even going into her dreadful record of appearing to treat minor attracted persons as the victim.

8 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

It should be a concern to everyone that she claimed to know what a woman is you need to be a biologist. Could she be relied on to protect women's rights if such a case came before the supreme court? Is Biden a biologist to know he hired the black woman he promised his voters?

 

 

"In the 13th hour of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearing Tuesday, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asked the Supreme Court nominee: “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” 

Jackson, appearing confused, responded, "I’m not a biologist.” 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2022/03/24/marsha-blackburn-asked-ketanji-jackson-define-woman-science/7152439001/

 

I wonder whether participants here think she is very dumb or is she dishonest? hmmm. I can't imagine a more unsuitable candidate, and that's without even going into her dreadful record of appearing to treat minor attracted persons as the victim.

You've twisted her words. I understand this is an oft seen tactic of the right. She was asked to provide a definition, not what she thought a woman was. It was an idiotic, baiting question anyway, designed to throw red meat to the q-anon crowd in support of her apparent run for the presidency.

3 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

It should be a concern to everyone that she claimed to know what a woman is you need to be a biologist. Could she be relied on to protect women's rights if such a case came before the supreme court? Is Biden a biologist to know he hired the black woman he promised his voters?

 

 

"In the 13th hour of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearing Tuesday, Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) asked the Supreme Court nominee: “Can you provide a definition for the word ‘woman’?” 

Jackson, appearing confused, responded, "I’m not a biologist.” 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2022/03/24/marsha-blackburn-asked-ketanji-jackson-define-woman-science/7152439001/

 

I wonder whether participants here think she is very dumb or is she dishonest? hmmm. I can't imagine a more unsuitable candidate, and that's without even going into her dreadful record of appearing to treat minor attracted persons as the victim.

I was wondering who that GOP pantomime performance was aimed at, now I know.

14 hours ago, Nickelbeer said:

It never seemed to bother you conservatives when the court was ALL WHITE and ALL MALE.

Would it bother you if the team carrying out your heart surgery is ALL WHITE and ALL MALE?

 

I bet you would insist on having your surgery postponed until such time as there's at least one (black) woman in the team.

On 3/23/2022 at 10:20 PM, 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.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how easily offended some are, at least when it is convenient. And how uninformed they are. "Full stop", wow, often used to accentuate an extremely lame argument, and a huge "tell". 

 

"Advise and consent."

 

A presidential candidate is free to make campaign promises. That they keep them should be applauded. I'm guessing you chose not to vote for Joe B. because he planned to appoint a black woman to SCOTUS?

 

It is not illegal for the president to nominate any candidate for federal office, or lifetime judicial appointment. I'd argue that is one of the primary responsibilities for POTUS.

 

It is the Senate's responsibility to approve the appointments.

 

 

To date, republican senators have raised many issues re: Judge Jackson, but none have raised the "discrimination" issue, yet.

 

 

20 hours ago, ozimoron said:

edit: and Thomas won't be around forever

Yeah, he's got health problems, and wife problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

 

It never ceases to amaze me how easily offended some are, at least when it is convenient. And how uninformed they are. "Full stop", wow, often used to accentuate an extremely lame argument, and a huge "tell". 

 

"Advise and consent."

 

A presidential candidate is free to make campaign promises. That they keep them should be applauded. I'm guessing you chose not to vote for Joe B. because he planned to appoint a black woman to SCOTUS?

 

It is not illegal for the president to nominate any candidate for federal office, or lifetime judicial appointment. I'd argue that is one of the primary responsibilities for POTUS.

 

It is the Senate's responsibility to approve the appointments.

 

 

To date, republican senators have raised many issues re: Judge Jackson, but none have raised the "discrimination" issue, yet.

 

 

Yeah, he's got health problems, and wife problems.

 

I’m quite certain he’s right now considering his future.

 

Perhaps Biden will get the chance to nominate a second highly qualified judge to the SCOTUS.

 

 

Claims that Biden blocked "the first black woman to be nominated by G Bush because she was a black women are outright misrepresentations of the facts. Such claims can only be found in unreliable far right publications.

 

columnist Marc A. Thiessen once again leaves out several pertinent facts in order to make a completely specious argument. He conveniently ignores the fact, according to Wikipedia, that the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights opposed Janice Rogers Brown’s nomination “based on her record on the California Supreme Court where she exhibited ‘a strong, persistent, and disturbing hostility toward affirmative action, civil rights, the rights of individuals with disabilities, workers’ rights, and the fairness of the criminal justice system.’”

 

https://www.cleveland.com/letters/2022/02/thiessen-leaves-out-why-biden-opposed-janice-rogers-browns-appellate-nomination.html

21 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. 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."

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

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

 

It’s in the President’s purview to choose who he wants, the party with a fondness waving the Confederate Flag, don’t like his choice.

 

"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?