Ketanji Brown Jackson sworn in as first black woman on the U.S. Supreme Court

[Jingthing]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

But why does it matter which colour she is ?

 

 

Biden wanted to do something historic for representation on the SCOTUS and he kept his promise. It's done, she's very qualified, and on the horrific illegitimate radical far right wing court she's on. he vote won't make any difference anyway. You guys won and still complaining! 

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More hyperbole.

 

Where is this ludicrous thing happening?

It’s not and it’s ludicrous to suggest it might.
 

 

 

 

I am talking about possible future Court cases , giving examples as to why it would be important for a Judges opinion on what constitutes being a certain gender 

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Really?

 

Any issue with the real decisions that the current lot have made over the past few weeks?

God forbid talking about something actually real and relevant!

[Chomper Higgot]

There is a long shameful history of people being denied basic constitutional rights and freedoms based upon their gender.

 

A SC Justice comes along who makes it very clear that Gender will play no role in her reading of the law.

 

Response: Outrage from the right wing.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

I am talking about possible future Court cases , giving examples as to why it would be important for a Judges opinion on what constitutes being a certain gender 

No you aren’t, you are dreaming up ludicrous hyperbole.

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Biden wanted to do something historic for representation on the SCOTUS and he kept his promise. It's done, she's very qualified, and on the horrific illegitimate radical far right wing court she's on. he vote won't make any difference anyway. You guys won and still complaining! 

OK, do you think that people should be chosen for a specific job based on their race and gender .

  I am not specifically talking that this particular case , but would it be acceptable for an organisation to state that would only take into consideration hiring a White Male for the position ?

  If you agree with one, you must agree with the other , otherwise you have double standards 

[Mac Mickmanus]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

There is a long shameful history of people being denied basic constitutional rights and freedoms based upon their gender.

 

A SC Justice comes along who makes it very clear that Gender will play no role in her reading of the law.

 

Response: Outrage from the right wing.

 

 

Could you be more specific ?

What are the  "basic constitutional rights and freedoms based upon their gender " which have been denied to Females ?

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

OK, do you think that people should be chosen for a specific job based on their race and gender .

  I am not specifically talking that this particular case , but would it be acceptable for an organisation to state that would only take into consideration hiring a White Male for the position ?

  If you agree with one, you must agree with the other , otherwise you have double standards 

You of all people don't get to tell me what I must do.

Try your transparent baiting game on someone that takes you seriously.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

13 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

But why does it matter which colour she is ?

 

 

The first black woman in such a role can act as a role model and a trail blazer like the first black president. I bet a lot of people through the years have altered their thinking as they saw blacks succeed in roles of authority especially after Obama became president.

It can also potentially balance a court somewhat that is supposed to represent all Americans. 

Beyond that make of it what you will. It appears she was an excellent candidate, no one is saying otherwise,  but if you think it's not fair that Biden made that promise before hand that's fine by me. 

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The first black woman in such a role can act as a role model and a trail blazer like the first black president. I bet a lot of people through the years have altered their thinking as they saw blacks succeed in roles of authority especially after Obama became president.

It can also potentially balance a court somewhat that is supposed to represent all Americans. 

Beyond that make of it what you will. It appears she was an excellent candidate, no one is saying otherwise,  but if you think it's not fair that Biden made that promise before hand that's fine by me. 

Really makes no difference to me what a persons colour is .

If the thought process is that she is black and will act as a role model to black kids .

   What about the other 85 % of Americans who are not black ?

[Woof999]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

 What about the other 85 % of Americans who are not black ?

Did the other 15% matter to you before the first black man was appointed?

[Mac Mickmanus]

11 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You of all people don't get to tell me what I must do.

Try your transparent baiting game on someone that takes you seriously.

Its quite a acceptable when a  black person is chose for a position on the basis of their colour , but its racist when a white person is chosen because of their colour . 

   Do you agree with that ?

[userabcd]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Hogwash.

 

Ketanji Brown Jackson is eminently qualified:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketanji_Brown_Jackson
 

Your accusation of ‘affirmative action’ says absolutely nothing about Brown Jackson but a great deal about you.

Strange she could not define a woman when she herself appears to be one.

Edited July 1, 2022 by userabcd

[Mac Mickmanus]

3 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

Did the other 15% matter to you before the first black man was appointed?

Well sort of , I ve been listening to black American music since the 1980's 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Its quite a acceptable when a  black person is chose for a position on the basis of their colour , but its racist when a white person is chosen because of their colour . 

   Do you agree with that ?

I agree that you're just playing inflammatory white resentment games. 

[Woof999]

1 minute ago, userabcd said:

Strange she could not define a woman when she herself appears to be one.

I expect she could define both a biological woman and a woman in the eyes of the law better than most. She showed an impressive amount of restraint and refused to be lead down a path that would then expose a thousand more prejudices of those asking them.

 

Impressive, even for a SCJ.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Really makes no difference to me what a persons colour is .

If the thought process is that she is black and will act as a role model to black kids .

   What about the other 85 % of Americans who are not black ?

 

9 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Its quite a acceptable when a  black person is chose for a position on the basis of their colour , but its racist when a white person is chosen because of their colour . 

   Do you agree with that ?

See the bigger picture. Think how women and blacks were treated in 1962 and what has been achieved in 60 years . 

At my work there are programs for indigenous Australians to get experience and it might mean a faster track than a different person. Might even cost me a promotion. I can live with that. But in 2022 if a woman got the edge over me for a promotion because she is a women I'd be peeved. Hasn't been an issue so far I think. 

Sometimes giving hard working smart people a helping hand  can be a good thing without concluding some one is a dumb soft liberal or horrible person with false motives.

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

I expect she could define both a biological woman and a woman in the eyes of the law better than most. She showed an impressive amount of restraint and refused to be lead down a path that would then expose a thousand more prejudices of those asking them.

 

Impressive, even for a SCJ.

As shes a judge, she should be honest and truthful at all times and give her opinion on certain subjects , Judges shouldn't avoid giving an opinion because they dont want to upset certain people .

   She should air her opinion, rather than refusing to answer 

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

I expect she could define both a biological woman and a woman in the eyes of the law better than most. She showed an impressive amount of restraint and refused to be lead down a path that would then expose a thousand more prejudices of those asking them.

 

Impressive, even for a SCJ.

A much better question would have been is a hot dog a sandwich?

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

As shes a judge, she should be honest and truthful at all times and give her opinion on certain subjects , Judges shouldn't avoid giving an opinion because they dont want to upset certain people .

   She should air her opinion, rather than refusing to answer 

Can we give this tedious broken record about the woman question a rest already?

Its not as if she lied about her opinion about Stare Decisis and how it relates to Roe vs Wade.

[Woof999]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

As shes a judge, she should be honest and truthful at all times and give her opinion on certain subjects , Judges shouldn't avoid giving an opinion because they dont want to upset certain people .

   She should air her opinion, rather than refusing to answer 

I would usually agree. However in this instance, those elected officials in positions of power should have worded the question in a way so that it was clearly not a bait - which I would hope anyone with an ounce of intelligence could see that it was. Her composure and wisdom in the response she gave (or didn't give) pretty much told us the answer and also showed her depth of thought - again impressive, even for a SCJ.

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

 

See the bigger picture. Think how women and blacks were treated in 1962 and what has been achieved in 60 years . 

At my work there are programs for indigenous Australians to get experience and it might mean a faster track than a different person. Might even cost me a promotion. I can live with that. But in 2022 if a woman got the edge over me for a promotion because she is a women I'd be peeved. Hasn't been an issue so far I think. 

Sometimes giving hard working smart people a helping hand  can be a good thing without concluding some one is a dumb soft liberal or horrible person with false motives.

I do agree that it was a an appalling situation in 1960's segregated USA , but that is a long time ago and a different generation .

   You would be peeved if a woman got promoted for the sole reason she was a woman and you missed out because you are male .

  That situation is very likely to have happened in this promotion "to a top Judge) , three woman got nominated for the sole reason they were female , which means its quite probable that some males missed out on being nominated and promoted  , because they weren't female 

[Mac Mickmanus]

5 minutes ago, Woof999 said:

I would usually agree. However in this instance, those elected officials in positions of power should have worded the question in a way so that it was clearly not a bait - which I would hope anyone with an ounce of intelligence could see that it was. Her composure and wisdom in the response she gave (or didn't give) pretty much told us the answer and also showed her depth of thought - again impressive, even for a SCJ.

The question was : 

  "Can you provide a definition for the word woman"

 

In your opinion, how should the question have been asking?

[Woof999]

Just now, Mac Mickmanus said:

The question was : 

  "Can you provide a definition for the word woman"

 

In your opinion, how should the question have been asking?

I pretty much answered that in my reply ***** to userabcd up there.

 

As a SCJ, she should have answered it in the eyes of the law. As a scientist.... using science. They are not necessarily the same answer and I have zero problem with that.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I do agree that it was a an appalling situation in 1960's segregated USA , but that is a long time ago and a different generation .

   You would be peeved if a woman got promoted for the sole reason she was a woman and you missed out because you are male .

  That situation is very likely to have happened in this promotion "to a top Judge) , three woman got nominated for the sole reason they were female , which means its quite probable that some males missed out on being nominated and promoted  , because they weren't female 

But my work place is clearly well represented by women whereas not long ago the supreme court was not and many positions of power are not. Each decision in that 60 years probably got criticised like this one - but in the longer term it has been a good thing.

I think her not answering about what is a woman shows a difference between how people think. Some can accept it's not her job to answer that and leave it there. Focus on substantive issues. Listen to her words not interpretations of what it might mean to fit your purpose. I would call that common sense. 

 

[Lacessit]

6 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

The mistake Biden made was in proclaiming that possession of black skin and a uterus were deciding factors in choosing a Justice.  That automatically eliminated 93% of the US population from the competition.  He should have kept it to himself and then just 'happen to' pick a black woman. But he wanted to make virtue signalling points with his leftist base, plus placate blacks who were wavering in supporting him, so politics overrode common sense.

Just like Trump did with his choices. Only he was virtue signalling to the fundamentalist white Christians.

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

5 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Just like Trump did with his choices. Only he was virtue signalling to the fundamentalist white Christians.

 

So you agree with Trumps actions/behaviour ?

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Really makes no difference to me what a persons colour is .

If the thought process is that she is black and will act as a role model to black kids .

   What about the other 85 % of Americans who are not black ?

They don't already have role models? They need more at the expense of black women who have never had any? You really can't get the point can you?

[EVENKEEL]

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

They don't already have role models? They need more at the expense of black women who have never had any? You really can't get the point can you?

Condoleezza Rice comes to mind. I would think she would be a fine role model.

[ozimoron]

Just now, EVENKEEL said:

Condoleezza Rice comes to mind. I would think she would be a fine role model.

Just like "I like beer" is a fine role model?