Kansas Crimson

Ok, I'll be the guy who says it - and my hope is most if not everyone agrees.
If a new Justice is appointed PRIMARILY because of the color of their skin and their gender - I feel that's really fucked up. No matter what the color of their skin and their gender is. Of course there are "qualified" African American women and I have ZERO problem if one is appointed but..... Are there not equally if not more qualified Caucasian men? So why the "need" to appoint an African American woman? I guess I MAY be able to answer my own question in the rest of what I am going to say in this post.

Are we that fucked up as a country in which our Supreme Court Justices do NOT represent the best interests of ALL Americans collectively? Of course we are - and we should probably be very concerned about that.
Therefore, I do understand the need (or at least strong desire) to have has much different representation in the High Court as possible - as to not have one sided discussions and decisions but like all political things in this country, that can also end up being a negative.
Bottom line is there will never be a "perfect" Supreme Court as far as ALL Americans are concerned.

I don't like it. At all. You should choose the best candidate, regardless of color, gender and the like.

The mistake Joe made was using the promise during campaigning.

Now, no matter how much she deserves it, he has marginalized whichever woman of color he picks. It discounts the pick by declaring that's why it is happening. His intentions were hopefully pure, and not purely politically motivated, and it's unintentional for it to have negative ramifications....but somethings are better left unsaid. Not everything needs to be shouted from the rooftops so you can get political butt taps.

I hope he goes through with it because it's long overdue, but it sucks his rambling often incoherent ass had to mess it up by talking too much.

We've never had a black female as a SC judge. Sounds like race and gender have always been used in choosing a justice. Unless you think there's never been one that's qualified enough...

Mjl wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:02 am We've never had a black female as a SC judge. Sounds like race and gender have always been used in choosing a justice. Unless you think there's never been one that's qualified enough...

All is fine and well, if that candidate is the best candidate. But to say it on a campaign trail and then to have to fulfill your promises without opening up the process to all seems non-inclusive. I get what the history is, break the history without having to feel forced to break the history.

Mjl wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:02 am We've never had a black female as a SC judge. Sounds like race and gender have always been used in choosing a justice. Unless you think there's never been one that's qualified enough...

There's that, and no matter what Biden did or didn't say beforehand the Fox News crowd was going to call this a token choice when the first black woman is nominated. Following through on campaign promises is what elected officials are supposed to do. Does anyone believe that a black woman's experience of the law and the justice system would be no different than a white man's? Adding that perspective to the Supreme Court seems like representation.

good job Joe good choices

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:25 am

Mjl wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:02 am We've never had a black female as a SC judge. Sounds like race and gender have always been used in choosing a justice. Unless you think there's never been one that's qualified enough...

All is fine and well, if that candidate is the best candidate. But to say it on a campaign trail and then to have to fulfill your promises without opening up the process to all seems non-inclusive. I get what the history is, break the history without having to feel forced to break the history.

That assumes a false premise that there's a way to accurately determine THE most qualified candidate. The reality is there are lots of qualified candidates. Given that amongst that pool nobody has ever chosen a black woman, it seems that whites and males are forced as picks all the time.

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:25 am I get what the history is, break the history without having to feel forced to break the history.

Yes. This.

And without having to make it about yourself by declaring ahead of time because you want pats on the back.

Mjl wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:52 am

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:25 am

Mjl wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:02 am We've never had a black female as a SC judge. Sounds like race and gender have always been used in choosing a justice. Unless you think there's never been one that's qualified enough...

All is fine and well, if that candidate is the best candidate. But to say it on a campaign trail and then to have to fulfill your promises without opening up the process to all seems non-inclusive. I get what the history is, break the history without having to feel forced to break the history.

That assumes a false premise that there's a way to accurately determine THE most qualified candidate. The reality is there are lots of qualified candidates. Given that amongst that pool nobody has ever chosen a black woman, it seems that whites and males are forced as picks all the time.

Correct.

So instead of saying "hey i am doing this because she's a woman and she's black", just do it because she was as qualified as anyone else and representation matters.

He wanted to make sure he could use it as a bargaining chip on the campaign trail. For something as historic as this will be, that rubs me the wrong way quite a bit.

Do the right thing because it's the right thing to do.

Too late now. So regardless, in the end, it'll be a good thing i think.

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:25 am

Mjl wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:02 am We've never had a black female as a SC judge. Sounds like race and gender have always been used in choosing a justice. Unless you think there's never been one that's qualified enough...

All is fine and well, if that candidate is the best candidate. But to say it on a campaign trail and then to have to fulfill your promises without opening up the process to all seems non-inclusive. I get what the history is, break the history without having to feel forced to break the history.

This is how Biden got the nomination though, it's been his move all along.

But, I'm fine with it, tired of seeing old (or now middle aged) white dude always get the opportunity.

If Biden wants a real power move, nominate Harris and replace her with Abrams as VP.

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:59 am

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:25 am I get what the history is, break the history without having to feel forced to break the history.

Yes. This.

And without having to make it about yourself by declaring ahead of time because you want pats on the back.

I doubt he's doing it for pats on the back, most people aren't even allowed to touch the president because of the secret service.

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:25 am

Mjl wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:02 am We've never had a black female as a SC judge. Sounds like race and gender have always been used in choosing a justice. Unless you think there's never been one that's qualified enough...

All is fine and well, if that candidate is the best candidate. But to say it on a campaign trail and then to have to fulfill your promises without opening up the process to all seems non-inclusive. I get what the history is, break the history without having to feel forced to break the history.

Seriously, the process has never been all inclusive. To start with there are only a limited amount of candidates who have relevant experience and education. And how has a racial discrimination barrier ever been broken in our history as a country without it being forced?

If it is going to happen, it is going to have to be a conscious decision.

Is the Democratic Party a party that prides itself on inclusion? If so, they need to treat it that way. I'm just saying to let it happen organically, not because you promised it and that's all you can do.

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:00 pm Is the Democratic Party a party that prides itself on inclusion? If so, they need to treat it that way. I'm just saying to let it happen organically, not because you promised it and that's all you can do.

Organically didn't work very well the first 250 years.

Mjl wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:02 am We've never had a black female as a SC judge. Sounds like race and gender have always been used in choosing a justice. Unless you think there's never been one that's qualified enough...

Clap….clap….clap…..

BasketballJayhawk wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:59 am

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:25 am I get what the history is, break the history without having to feel forced to break the history.

Yes. This.

And without having to make it about yourself by declaring ahead of time because you want pats on the back.

He didn't bring it up, it came up in the context of a debate.

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:25 am

Mjl wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:02 am We've never had a black female as a SC judge. Sounds like race and gender have always been used in choosing a justice. Unless you think there's never been one that's qualified enough...

All is fine and well, if that candidate is the best candidate. But to say it on a campaign trail and then to have to fulfill your promises without opening up the process to all seems non-inclusive. I get what the history is, break the history without having to feel forced to break the history.

Who is to determine what defines "best"? There is already some sort of arbitrary decision making happening as to who will and will not be considered. If you tend to rule on the side of pro-life then you aren't going to get considered even if you are a black woman (in this particular case). What's different about this particular set of criteria?

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:00 pm Is the Democratic Party a party that prides itself on inclusion? If so, they need to treat it that way. I'm just saying to let it happen organically, not because you promised it and that's all you can do.

Sorry, but this just isn't how it works at this level. It is time to show the African American women of this country that people like them can perform at this job just as well as men, whites and hispanics. Optics comes into play in hirings such as this.

Mjl wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:14 pm

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:00 pm Is the Democratic Party a party that prides itself on inclusion? If so, they need to treat it that way. I'm just saying to let it happen organically, not because you promised it and that's all you can do.

Organically didn't work very well the first 250 years.

Organic>=<grassroots? A record number of people voted for Biden and his campaign promises. Isn't that about as organic as it gets?

defixione wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:49 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:14 pm

NewtonHawk11 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:00 pm Is the Democratic Party a party that prides itself on inclusion? If so, they need to treat it that way. I'm just saying to let it happen organically, not because you promised it and that's all you can do.

Organically didn't work very well the first 250 years.

Organic>=<grassroots? A record number of people voted for Biden and his campaign promises. Isn't that about as organic as it gets?

That too