Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
dmg626 wrote:Good! Replacement will be a black female, news already saying that’s what administration wants. Maybe points for any extra letters used to describe her.
dmg626 wrote:Good! Replacement will be a black female, news already saying that’s what administration wants. Maybe points for any extra letters used to describe her.
StarAC17 wrote:If I am Biden, tell him to retire now.
He has a window now and has a good chance at getting a least a moderate justice confirmed. You do this later in the year and there are any holdups, you might not get a chance. He is likely to lose control of the senate in November and McConell will hold up a confirmation like he did in 2016.
I don't think Manchin an Sinema will hold up a justice unless its one who thinks cops shouldn't exist.
dmg626 wrote:Good! Replacement will be a black female, news already saying that’s what administration wants. Maybe points for any extra letters used to describe her.
fr8mech wrote:So, everyone is kinda ok with this? What if a president said he would only nominate a white female? Or, a black male? Or a Hispanic, transgendered person? How about an gay, white male? We’re all ok with limiting the pool of potential Supreme Court justices for political reasons?
Disgusting. The most qualified person who can get through the nomination and confirmation process should be the next Supreme Court justice, not a check mark.
fr8mech wrote:dmg626 wrote:Good! Replacement will be a black female, news already saying that’s what administration wants. Maybe points for any extra letters used to describe her.
So, everyone is kinda ok with this? What if a president said he would only nominate a white female? Or, a black male? Or a Hispanic, transgendered person? How about an gay, white male? We’re all ok with limiting the pool of potential Supreme Court justices for political reasons?
Disgusting. The most qualified person who can get through the nomination and confirmation process should be the next Supreme Court justice, not a check mark.
fr8mech wrote:dmg626 wrote:Good! Replacement will be a black female, news already saying that’s what administration wants. Maybe points for any extra letters used to describe her.
So, everyone is kinda ok with this? What if a president said he would only nominate a white female? Or, a black male? Or a Hispanic, transgendered person? How about an gay, white male? We’re all ok with limiting the pool of potential Supreme Court justices for political reasons?
Disgusting. The most qualified person who can get through the nomination and confirmation process should be the next Supreme Court justice, not a check mark.
casinterest wrote:fr8mech wrote:dmg626 wrote:Good! Replacement will be a black female, news already saying that’s what administration wants. Maybe points for any extra letters used to describe her.
So, everyone is kinda ok with this? What if a president said he would only nominate a white female? Or, a black male? Or a Hispanic, transgendered person? How about an gay, white male? We’re all ok with limiting the pool of potential Supreme Court justices for political reasons?
Disgusting. The most qualified person who can get through the nomination and confirmation process should be the next Supreme Court justice, not a check mark.
Why are you disgusted. Where you disgusted when the last three nominees went up? The ones that had to tick all the check boxes on a white nationalist approval box?
SoCalPilot wrote:casinterest wrote:fr8mech wrote:
So, everyone is kinda ok with this? What if a president said he would only nominate a white female? Or, a black male? Or a Hispanic, transgendered person? How about an gay, white male? We’re all ok with limiting the pool of potential Supreme Court justices for political reasons?
Disgusting. The most qualified person who can get through the nomination and confirmation process should be the next Supreme Court justice, not a check mark.
Why are you disgusted. Where you disgusted when the last three nominees went up? The ones that had to tick all the check boxes on a white nationalist approval box?
So I'm confused, are you saying that choosing based on race is ok or not?
SoCalPilot wrote:So I'm confused, are you saying that choosing based on race is ok or not?
Aaron747 wrote:Not race, predetermined political criteria.
fr8mech wrote:"Political criteria"? Just a fancy, or politically expedient, way of using class or race or sexual or gender politics to justify bigotry.
fr8mech wrote:Honestly, what would have been the reaction if Biden had said he wanted to nominate a white male, all other things being equal?
Aaron747 wrote:so highly-visible government posts are not simply about 'the best qualified individual'.
Aaron747 wrote:Bigotry requires malicious intent
fr8mech wrote:That's horse dung and you know it. There's plenty of folks on this forum, right now, that consider me a bigot simply because I brought this up.
As I've told my children many times, perception is reality when dealing with the public.
fr8mech wrote:Aaron747 wrote:so highly-visible government posts are not simply about 'the best qualified individual'.
I can agree with that, but based on Biden's promise, it is a foregone conclusion what ethnicity and sex he will choose to nominate. And, that's wrong. He is unnecessarily limiting his pool of applicants. Are we going to see a pool of qualified Black women...only qualified Black women? Or, will we see a pool qualified jurists that includes Black women?Aaron747 wrote:Bigotry requires malicious intent
That's horse dung and you know it. There's plenty of folks on this forum, right now, that consider me a bigot simply because I brought this up.
As I've told my children many times, perception is reality when dealing with the public.
NIKV69 wrote:fr8mech wrote:Aaron747 wrote:so highly-visible government posts are not simply about 'the best qualified individual'.
I can agree with that, but based on Biden's promise, it is a foregone conclusion what ethnicity and sex he will choose to nominate. And, that's wrong. He is unnecessarily limiting his pool of applicants. Are we going to see a pool of qualified Black women...only qualified Black women? Or, will we see a pool qualified jurists that includes Black women?Aaron747 wrote:Bigotry requires malicious intent
That's horse dung and you know it. There's plenty of folks on this forum, right now, that consider me a bigot simply because I brought this up.
As I've told my children many times, perception is reality when dealing with the public.
Picking SC justices like most of what goes on in DC has become politicized greatly. Don't forget Biden was just about done in the primaries and if it wasn't for Clyburn and the Black caucus Bernie or Pete B would have won. As payback IMO he was instructed to promise a Black female SC justice and now he will do that as he stated in the debate. As for qualified Black females there are plenty.
Aaron747 wrote:There are a lot of qualified people who can serve in that capacity, whether white or any other needed demographic, so highly-visible government posts are not simply about 'the best qualified individual'.
afcjets wrote:Aaron747 wrote:There are a lot of qualified people who can serve in that capacity, whether white or any other needed demographic, so highly-visible government posts are not simply about 'the best qualified individual'.
Are you saying Kamala Harris isn't the most qualified person to be the President should something happen to Joe?
alberchico wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60144505
Just breaking now. Shame that it won't affect the balance of the court.
Aaron747 wrote:SoCalPilot wrote:casinterest wrote:
Why are you disgusted. Where you disgusted when the last three nominees went up? The ones that had to tick all the check boxes on a white nationalist approval box?
So I'm confused, are you saying that choosing based on race is ok or not?
Not race, predetermined political criteria. There’s a difference - conservatives just knee-jerk react to such criteria if they have a demographic component.
Kiwirob wrote:alberchico wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60144505
Just breaking now. Shame that it won't affect the balance of the court.
It's a pity RBG hadn't been so arrogant and retired when Obama was in office. Good on this guy for making the right move.
NIKV69 wrote:fr8mech wrote:Aaron747 wrote:so highly-visible government posts are not simply about 'the best qualified individual'.
I can agree with that, but based on Biden's promise, it is a foregone conclusion what ethnicity and sex he will choose to nominate. And, that's wrong. He is unnecessarily limiting his pool of applicants. Are we going to see a pool of qualified Black women...only qualified Black women? Or, will we see a pool qualified jurists that includes Black women?Aaron747 wrote:Bigotry requires malicious intent
That's horse dung and you know it. There's plenty of folks on this forum, right now, that consider me a bigot simply because I brought this up.
As I've told my children many times, perception is reality when dealing with the public.
Picking SC justices like most of what goes on in DC has become politicized greatly. Don't forget Biden was just about done in the primaries and if it wasn't for Clyburn and the Black caucus Bernie or Pete B would have won. As payback IMO he was instructed to promise a Black female SC justice and now he will do that as he stated in the debate. As for qualified Black females there are plenty.
fr8mech wrote:dmg626 wrote:Good! Replacement will be a black female, news already saying that’s what administration wants. Maybe points for any extra letters used to describe her.
So, everyone is kinda ok with this? What if a president said he would only nominate a white female? Or, a black male? Or a Hispanic, transgendered person? How about an gay, white male? We’re all ok with limiting the pool of potential Supreme Court justices for political reasons?
Disgusting. The most qualified person who can get through the nomination and confirmation process should be the next Supreme Court justice, not a check mark.
fr8mech wrote:Honestly, what would have been the reaction if Biden had said he wanted to nominate a white male, all other things being equal?
ltbewr wrote:In early 2020, then Joe Biden in a public debate of top Democrats running in primaries for the Presidential party nomination made a statement, influenced by leaders of the Black Congressional (Democratic party exclusively) Caucasus to state if got the opportunity to nominate someone to the US Supreme Court it was to be a Black Woman. This was to appeal/appease the critical Black voters the Democrats needed to win
fr8mech wrote:I can agree with that, but based on Biden's promise, it is a foregone conclusion what ethnicity and sex he will choose to nominate. And, that's wrong. He is unnecessarily limiting his pool of applicants. Are we going to see a pool of qualified Black women...only qualified Black women? Or, will we see a pool qualified jurists that includes Black women?
ItnStln wrote:Thank you for admitting that this nomination is nothing more than pandering and identity politics.
ItnStln wrote:fr8mech wrote:dmg626 wrote:Good! Replacement will be a black female, news already saying that’s what administration wants. Maybe points for any extra letters used to describe her.
So, everyone is kinda ok with this? What if a president said he would only nominate a white female? Or, a black male? Or a Hispanic, transgendered person? How about an gay, white male? We’re all ok with limiting the pool of potential Supreme Court justices for political reasons?
Disgusting. The most qualified person who can get through the nomination and confirmation process should be the next Supreme Court justice, not a check mark.
Could you imagine the riots and looting that would take place if a POTUS said they will appoint a straight white male to SCOTUS? It should be about qualifications and not demographics.
Aaron747 wrote:ItnStln wrote:fr8mech wrote:
So, everyone is kinda ok with this? What if a president said he would only nominate a white female? Or, a black male? Or a Hispanic, transgendered person? How about an gay, white male? We’re all ok with limiting the pool of potential Supreme Court justices for political reasons?
Disgusting. The most qualified person who can get through the nomination and confirmation process should be the next Supreme Court justice, not a check mark.
Could you imagine the riots and looting that would take place if a POTUS said they will appoint a straight white male to SCOTUS? It should be about qualifications and not demographics.
Anyone with a long and established judicial and/or legal academic record is qualified. Within that rather large cohort, you can then start looking at demographics for candidates to ensure the SCOTUS retains legitimacy with the people through at least a modicum of representation.
casinterest wrote:Aaron747 wrote:ItnStln wrote:Could you imagine the riots and looting that would take place if a POTUS said they will appoint a straight white male to SCOTUS? It should be about qualifications and not demographics.
Anyone with a long and established judicial and/or legal academic record is qualified. Within that rather large cohort, you can then start looking at demographics for candidates to ensure the SCOTUS retains legitimacy with the people through at least a modicum of representation.
I saw no screaming from the GOP as the Candidates Trump rolled out where white and continued to be white, and didn't represent any semblance of diversity.
The bench needs more women, and it needs diversity. America isn't a Conservative Religious sharia country.
afcjets wrote:Aaron747 wrote:There are a lot of qualified people who can serve in that capacity, whether white or any other needed demographic, so highly-visible government posts are not simply about 'the best qualified individual'.
Are you saying Kamala Harris isn't the most qualified person to be the President should something happen to Joe?
Tugger wrote:For over a century race never was mentioned becasue it never needed to be mentioned as the ONLY qualified person, the only kind of person that would even be thought as possible to consider, was a white man.
It wasn't a wide open "who's best for the job". There was as simple narrow criteria that all nominees first had to meet "White" and "Male".
That fact that so many now choose to ignore that is just silly.
Do I agree with stating such things a "i will only consider...", no I don't. Do I agree with race or sex based quota's for hiring or admittance to schools etc? No, I don't. But I get why right now these things are being discussed and looked at when looking at how to create a Court that represents "The People".
I don't get why so many people insist on being blind to reality, intentionally naive.
Tugg
StarAC17 wrote:Kamala might have been an prosecutor and a senator but based on my judgement which I know means nothing. If Biden was not able to continue as president I would have much more faith it Pete to take over the job. He has served in the armed forces and does have some degree of executive experience and at least to me seems to be more of a critical thinker and can pivot when information changes. Again my observation.
seb146 wrote:Why is the right so offended by the courts and government looking like the United States in the 21st Century? Republicans are whining and complaining there are too many minorities in positions of power.
FlapOperator wrote:seb146 wrote:Why is the right so offended by the courts and government looking like the United States in the 21st Century? Republicans are whining and complaining there are too many minorities in positions of power.
At what point are wild accusations of racism outside the realm of the "politics of civility?"
Or, was HRC correct when she categorized 25% of the United States as "basket of deplorables?"
Aaron747 wrote:afcjets wrote:Aaron747 wrote:There are a lot of qualified people who can serve in that capacity, whether white or any other needed demographic, so highly-visible government posts are not simply about 'the best qualified individual'.
Are you saying Kamala Harris isn't the most qualified person to be the President should something happen to Joe?
Irrelevant, because the executive line of succession is predetermined. This topic is about posts that are up for competition.
Harris is hardly worth highlighting anyway when we've already been exposed to the idiot likes of Dan Quayle and VP-to-bes Edwards and Palin.
DeltaMD90 wrote:Wait a minute, didn't Trump vow to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court a few years ago? While more broad than "black woman," isn't that the same thing?
Of course, one could argue those are both wrong, but I don't remember hearing any outrage at all a few years back
I do imagine it could get a little ridiculous if every future pick is vetted to equal the make-up of America ("ok, now we need an LGBT, and Asian, oh here is a random gay Asian lawyer") but in broad strokes, I can see the importance of different demographics being represented (IF that person is well qualified).
I think that was the main criticism against the VP. Poor performance in the primaries, somewhat unpopular, etc but being picked as a diversity hire (I'm not saying this, I honestly haven't payed attention to her or politics much lately, but that's just the argument). As long as Biden picks someone well qualified, I think it will be just fine.
I do think it would've been a way better option to have a diverse list, including a bunch of black women, and just settled on a black woman. Maybe that wouldn't be fooling anyone, but it would at least shoot down some of the drama
afcjets wrote:Aaron747 wrote:afcjets wrote:Are you saying Kamala Harris isn't the most qualified person to be the President should something happen to Joe?
Irrelevant, because the executive line of succession is predetermined. This topic is about posts that are up for competition.
Harris is hardly worth highlighting anyway when we've already been exposed to the idiot likes of Dan Quayle and VP-to-bes Edwards and Palin.
It's totally relevant, once again Joe promises to make both race and gender mandatory, and eliminates the vast majority of the candidates. It is also demeaning to qualified black women because people would know why she was chosen.
"We have not mentioned a single name. We have not put out a list. The president made very, very clear he has not made a selection," Psaki said. "If anyone is saying they plan to characterize whoever he nominates after thorough consideration with both parties as 'radical' before they knew literally anything about who she is, they just obliterated their own credibility."
Psaki later was asked about comments from some conservatives, like Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), that Biden's pledge to nominate a Black woman amounted to an affirmative action selection.
She pushed back on the idea, noting former President Reagan had nominated the first woman to serve on the court in Sandra Day O'Connor and said doing so symbolized "the richness of opportunity that still abides in America" for individuals of any age, sex, or race.
afcjets wrote:Aaron747 wrote:afcjets wrote:Are you saying Kamala Harris isn't the most qualified person to be the President should something happen to Joe?
Irrelevant, because the executive line of succession is predetermined. This topic is about posts that are up for competition.
Harris is hardly worth highlighting anyway when we've already been exposed to the idiot likes of Dan Quayle and VP-to-bes Edwards and Palin.
It's totally relevant, once again Joe promises to make both race and gender mandatory, and eliminates the vast majority of the candidates. It is also demeaning to qualified black women because people would know why she was chosen.
seb146 wrote:Why is the right so offended by the courts and government looking like the United States in the 21st Century? Republicans are whining and complaining there are too many minorities in positions of power.