The New Supreme Court Justice

[Dutch Oven]

Yeah, that's true. But again, are you telling me that Kavanaugh and ACB got there solely on merit? Or the 100+ other white male justices? That they were the best of the best and not appointed due to ideological reasons? You know that isn't the case.

It's difficult to describe what the legal system defines as "merit". Kavanaugh and ACB both appear to me to have been appointed because of their views on specific legal issues, not because they were white, and the legal issues important to their nomination do not pertain to race.

If I were in charge I might define different considerations for appointments, but I can't say that the current criteria discriminate against black nominees.

 

[Valcazar]

I can feel my IQ declining reading this. Pure ideology.

Sad.
You don't even want to challenge your own ignorance, but embrace getting stupider by your own account.
I get it, I do.
You know one line of one speech in 1963 and have been taught that it is all you need to know about MLK.
That it doesn't even worry you that a man who was an activist for years might have said more than that one line is just... sad.

 

[Valcazar]

If you're considering the skin colour of appointees at all, you're abandoning the concept of merit to some degree.

That's nonsense, of course.

Let's say you could actually articulate a bar for "qualified" for Supreme Court justice. (I'm quite sure you can't.)
Everyone over that bar is qualified.
After that, you rely on other criteria to narrow down your choice, because the role isn't one that has stand alone neutral metrics.

The only way your statement makes sense is if you think that it is inherently true that a black woman can't be qualified in the first place.

 

[Valcazar]

Yeah, that's true. But again, are you telling me that Kavanaugh and ACB got there solely on merit? Or the 100+ other white male justices? That they were the best of the best and not appointed due to ideological reasons? You know that isn't the case.

Even easier.
Pretty sure if they dare to actually list "objective qualifications" for Supreme Court, Comey-Barrett and Kavanaugh will either fail them or be woefully under qualified compared to Biden's nominee.
I'm

 

[Valcazar]

Yes, the goal of the color blind society is just "one small quote ".

It wasn't his goal.
It was a dream that one day it might be an achievable goal.
One he said afterwards was being turned into a nightmare.

But it is good you know at least one line in one speech.

 

[Valcazar]

It's difficult to describe what the legal system defines as "merit". Kavanaugh and ACB both appear to me to have been appointed because of their views on specific legal issues, not because they were white, and the legal issues important to their nomination do not pertain to race.

This is good actually.
"Trump chose people by narrow legal adherence to ideology. Biden's criteria of "a black woman" is therefore more wide ranging and merit-based, since he never mentioned adherence to ideology as a criteria."

 

[jcpro]

It wasn't his goal.
It was a dream that one day it might be an achievable goal.
One he said afterwards was being turned into a nightmare.

But it is good you know at least one line in one speech.

Spin.

 

[fall]

It will be a black woman.

Thank God it is still enough. In a few years she must also have to be lesbian and disable. And in 20 years the disability must be mental

 

[jcpro]

Thank God it is still enough. In a few years she must also have to be lesbian and disable. And in 20 years the disability must be mental

And in 25 it will be a pregnant man. They already have the emoji.

 

[Dutch Oven]

This is good actually.
"Trump chose people by narrow legal adherence to ideology. Biden's criteria of "a black woman" is therefore more wide ranging and merit-based, since he never mentioned adherence to ideology as a criteria."

Making appointments by race IS an ideology.

 

[silentkisser]

It's difficult to describe what the legal system defines as "merit". Kavanaugh and ACB both appear to me to have been appointed because of their views on specific legal issues, not because they were white, and the legal issues important to their nomination do not pertain to race.

If I were in charge I might define different considerations for appointments, but I can't say that the current criteria discriminate against black nominees.

It can reasonably be argued that killing the right to an abortion or even affirmative action laws significantly impact minority communities in the United States...And while there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, they both have ties to religious movements that are vehemently opposed to women having the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

As for the current system, I think you are correct, it doesn't blatantly discriminate against black nominees, they just never make the short list regardless of the accomplishments. So, while it may not be codified, it still has the issue.

 

[Darts]

Making appointments by race IS an ideology.

Yes, making race a factor in college/university admission (aka affirmative action) is also ideology. It means that some people can't/unable to compete on a level playing field.

"Affirmative action refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to include particular groups based on their gender, race, sexuality, creed or nationality in areas in which they are underrepresented such as education and employment."

 

[toguy5252]

Yes, making race a factor in college/university admission (aka affirmative action) is also ideology. It means that some people can't/unable to compete on a level playing field.

"Affirmative action refers to a set of policies and practices within a government or organization seeking to include particular groups based on their gender, race, sexuality, creed or nationality in areas in which they are underrepresented such as education and employment."

Do you deny that historically, not necessarily at present, there have been impediments in place which have had the effect of denying blacks educational, professional and other opportunities. Historically. this should be a yes or no question.

 

[silentkisser]

Spin.

Not spin. Fact. I don't have the time to hold your hand on this, but here is a good summarization of what the issue is with that one quote:

Martin Luther King and Colorblind Conservatism | Society for US Intellectual History

(The following is a talk I will give at the University of Southern Denmark to commemorate the Fiftieth Anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” Speech. I will be one of six speakers at an event hosted by the Center for American Studies.) On this date in 2010, conservative television...

s-usih.org

Basically, King's dream was about eventually reaching a point where skin colour didn't matter. However, can you honestly say the United States (or Canada for that matter) has reached the ability to do that? I know your knee-jerk reaction is going to be something like -- well, yes, but the dems keep playing identity politics, or some other bullshit right-wing spin that really is easy to refute. Consider how so many attacks against Obama were blatantly racist, or dog whistles at best. Consider the attacks Kamala Harris is being hit with. So, while all the GOP members repeat the phrase "content of their character," we see POC repeatedly being discriminated against, sometime to deadly affect. Like the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, who basically dies because three white men felt a black man shouldn't be jogging in their neighbourhood. Or Trayvon Martin getting killed because he was walking while black with a hoodie. Yet Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero to the right (as was George Zimmerman). What about the incidents where white people feel the need to police blacks doing leisure activities, like grilling in a park, attending youth soccer games, or watching birds...

So, tell me how King's vision has been achieved? The civil rights movement stalled in the 70s. Many people felt it accomplished all its goals. But, looking at where society is right now, how can anyone seriously make that argument? Are things better? Sure. But there is still systemic racism in so many things that right-wing people never believe of care about.

So, go on and pretend that this is going against MLK's vision. Because it isn't. It doesn't change the past horrors POC have experienced in the US, or the ones they will continue to experience going forward.

 

[Darts]

Does anyone deny that historically, not necessarily at present, there have been impediments in place which have had the effect of denying many whites (e.g. Catholic Irish, Italians, etc.) and visible minority groups educational, professional and other opportunities. Historically. this should be a yes or no question.

 

[Frankfooter]

Spin.

Uh huh, the guy defending the folks who marched with white supremacists is the only one here that understands what MLK really meant, not what he said?

 

[jcpro]

Uh huh, the guy defending the folks who marched with white supremacists is the only one here that understands what MLK really meant, not what he said?

You can look at the Democrat run cities to see the end results of the struggle for equality.

 

[Frankfooter]

You can look at the Democrat run cities to see the end results of the struggle for equality.

I take it that's an admission that you lost the MLK debate.

 

[KDK13]

The undertone is if you're picking a black woman by definition you're not picking the most qualified.
Unmitigated bullshit.
Tell me Amy Barret or Brett Kavanaugh are the best legal minds of their generation. They are not.
Biden needs to put out a comparison chart of his nominee vs the last 3. But remove the names. Then let people compare, then judge.

 

[jcpro]

I take it that's an admission that you lost the MLK debate.

What did you wrote? "marched with white supremacists"- do you people not realize how deranged that kind of statements are? How can anyone engage you in an intelligent conversation once you said something so outlandish, false and,frankly, _______?