Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[LarryBnDC]

Is it just me or was there a major disconnect between what RED appears to have written himself and the quote? Prof Barton has nothing to say about the black female thing, just thinks Biden should consider other demographic and political issues as well.

And so do most Americans.
Especially after a year of his administration that was marked by his insistence that only a black woman would be considered for Vice President.
My post was an answer to Barton claiming SCOTUS needs to reflect diversity.
But his definition of diversity is based solely on sex and skin color.

Oddly, when I looked at my post, that was not the definition I gave.

It was exactly. But why apologize for it? 

It was not.  It is you who added the word "solely," which I neither meant nor said.  I assume that if diverse ethnic and gender experience are useful search criteria now, they are not the ONLY criteria.  Indeed, that's why team Biden is searching for outstanding jurists with bench experience that is significant. 

Only if they are female and black.

Of course a Black woman would have different experiences and perspectives that, say, Neil Gorsuch does not have. But that would be true of ANY candidate.
Clearly not.  Many candidates would an upbringing and formative experiences quite similar to him, being white men from affluent families with similar cultural ambience.

Clarence Thomas hardly came from a rich upbringing. And he is Black, just the wrong kind of Black to you. Further, diversity comes in many forms not represented on the current Court, but they cannot be quantified into voting blocs.

The question that troubles most voters is why substitute exclusion for diversity? A SCOTUS appointment is a big deal for a Presidents so why narrowly define the qualifications?   Under the restraint imposed by Biden a modern version of Thurgood Marshall would never be found.

Strawman argument.  Appointments like Sotomayor or a future black woman are about inclusion of a group that was long excluded from any consideration for the highest court.  Being selective in your candidate search in order to include their perspectives in no way excludes white people who are (QED) quite abundant on SCOTUS.  Calling this "exclusion" is the sort of Orwellian newspeak that would suggest a country club admitting its first Jew had just excluded Christians.  Or that appointing Thurgood Marshall was an act of excluding a white man!  LoL.

Of course it reflects raw exclusion. No need to look for any minority candidates among Hispanics, Asians, Italians, Jews, etc., or Black men.
It is a tactic that 76 per cent of voters (including 54% of DEMOCRATS)already disagree with.

Biden Rule

Shut up.

[LarryBnDC]

Regardless the qualifications the GOP will label any selection an Affirmative action appointment.


You and yours are actually who are labelling it such by mentioning it in such a way.

Go back to sleep, Hans.

[josh]

Regardless the qualifications the GOP will label any selection an Affirmative action appointment.


You and yours are actually who are labelling it such by mentioning it in such a way.

No, Kid.

It was a US Senator from your party that labeled it that way.

[facilitatorn]

http://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/01/trump-political-groups-spending-00004057

It should all be transferred to the Treasury Department via the Patriot Act.

[REDSTATEWARD]

Regardless the qualifications the GOP will label any selection an Affirmative action appointment.


You and yours are actually who are labelling it such by mentioning it in such a way.

A more correct description is exclusionary affirmative action.

[kidcarter8]

Recommended reading along with Ms Kelly's January 6 offering

George Packer's THE BETRAYAL

America's chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.

(In the Atlantic, sorry - $$  thought it was a book)

[kidcarter8]

Go back to sleep, Hans.


Shhh....

I know you are trying to get someone to toss a racial slur at you.

Not happening here.  Go be a victim somewhere else.

[kidcarter8]

It was a US Senator from your party that labeled it that way.


And in turn YOU label our entire party as saying so.  Exactly what I am talking about.

Nice how that works for you.  Except it really doesn't.

[LarryBnDC]

Regardless the qualifications the GOP will label any selection an Affirmative action appointment.


You and yours are actually who are labelling it such by mentioning it in such a way.

A more correct description is exclusionary affirmative action.

You sound like Ted Cruz and he is an asshole

[LarryBnDC]

When you wont condemn neo Nazis, well...

https://www.businessinsider.com/desantis-orlando-florida-condemn-neo-nazis-demonstrators-smear-white-power-2022-1

[Hairy Lime]

Regardless the qualifications the GOP will label any selection an Affirmative action appointment.


You and yours are actually who are labelling it such by mentioning it in such a way.

A more correct description is exclusionary affirmative action.

Just like when Trump limited his search to women after RBG died. Oh, how you complained long and hard about how limiting and insulting that was! Oh, wait....

[REDSTATEWARD]

Regardless the qualifications the GOP will label any selection an Affirmative action appointment.


You and yours are actually who are labelling it such by mentioning it in such a way.

A more correct description is exclusionary affirmative action.

Just like when Trump limited his search to women after RBG died. Oh, how you complained long and hard about how limiting and insulting that was! Oh, wait....

You got that wrong. Trump did not limit  his search to women after RBG died.
Before announcing he was going to nominate a woman he publicly released three lists of possible nominees of different races and genders. All on the list were vetted and the final short list included not just Amy Barrett but a majority of male jurists.

[kidcarter8]

A C Barrettt was on short list when Cavanaugh was confirmed.

But Whisk knows this.

[LarryBnDC]

Regardless the qualifications the GOP will label any selection an Affirmative action appointment.


You and yours are actually who are labelling it such by mentioning it in such a way.

A more correct description is exclusionary affirmative action.

Just like when Trump limited his search to women after RBG died. Oh, how you complained long and hard about how limiting and insulting that was! Oh, wait....

You got that wrong. Trump did not limit  his search to women after RBG died.
Before announcing he was going to nominate a woman he publicly released three lists of possible nominees of different races and genders. All on the list were vetted and the final short list included not just Amy Barrett but a majority of male jurists.

Biden Rule

Shut up

[Oilcan]

I keep looking at Supreme Courts and I am having trouble seeing the excluded men and the excluded white people. 

Whilst true that these categories can be shallow ones, it's the deeper differences of experience that correlate with those outward appearances that are essential to having a broadly representative court.  And don't forget that part of the experience of being, say, black is in HOW THE LEGAL SYSTEM TREATS YOU and what biases lie therein.  Which, by gosh, might have some bearing on matters of jurisprudence.