daytripper wrote: ↑May 11th, '22, 19:59
So your saying that being not black or female precludes you from getting the job isn't racist or sexist? Seems like the definition to me.
I think it's situationally dependent. If what you're trying to do is address a historic legacy of discrimination by intentionally elevating a qualified candidate from a class that has suffered such a historic legacy of discrimination, you're kind of just righting some past wrongs. It would be nice if we were beyond that, but it's kind of hard to believe that we are given the glaring racism that still seems to exist in this country.
If SCOTUS were comprised of predominantly black women, and Biden tried to appoint another, then maybe you'd have a better point. But in this situation, I'm not sure it tracks.
easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 11th, '22, 16:51
Kavanaugh was a federal circuit judge for 12 years before he was appointed. Before that he practiced law for 16 years. Before that he clerked for a federal appeals judge after graduating from Yale Law. He seems pretty qualified to me.
Rapists are not qualified to be on the Supreme Court.
Still subscribing to conspiracy theories of your own I see.
Credible testimony under oath from the victim is hardly conspiracy theory.
boston_e wrote: ↑May 12th, '22, 06:59
Credible testimony under oath from the victim is hardly conspiracy theory.
What ever happened to the lucrative book deal she was supposedly doing this for? Apparently she got a bunch of money from GoFundMe and donated most of it to charity. Weird for someone who supposedly was motivated by financial gain.
I wish the Kavanaugh situation was handled differently. In an ideal world, Feinstein would have gone to the President, disclosed this issue privately, and the President would have quietly pulled Kavanaugh and chosen someone else of a similar political persuasion without this black mark on his record. But you know, politics in America doesn't work that way these days.
easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 11th, '22, 16:51
Kavanaugh was a federal circuit judge for 12 years before he was appointed. Before that he practiced law for 16 years. Before that he clerked for a federal appeals judge after graduating from Yale Law. He seems pretty qualified to me.
Rapists are not qualified to be on the Supreme Court.
Still subscribing to conspiracy theories of your own I see.
Credible testimony under oath from the victim is hardly conspiracy theory.
The dubious claim was uncorroborated, the alleged witnesses she named denying any knowledge of the party or outright refuting the accusation, and the Senate Judiciary Committee ultimately found that there was “no evidence to substantiate any of the claims.”
“In neither the committee’s investigation nor in the supplemental background investigation conducted by the FBI was there ANY evidence to substantiate or corroborate any of the allegations,” the Committee wrote.
You can't even support your charge of rape. There was no rape.
In a timeline of allegations against Kavanaugh released by Grassley Wednesday night, Grassley's office wrote that two men came forward to the committee, one on Monday and one Wednesday, to say they believe they "had the encounter" with Ford in 1982, not Kavanaugh. The men were not named in the timeline.
Two men came forward? That does not strike you as strange?
It's not surprising that an allegation of a sexual assault that happened 40 years ago would be difficult to corroborate. I'm not saying it happened, but I also don't think it's a conspiracy theory. A person was willing to go under oath and endure a lot of scorn to make the claim. She may be lying, or perhaps maybe just mistaken, but that's not what constitutes a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory would be that Ford collaborated with Democrats to concoct a BS story to hurt the nomination of a judge.
As to Kavanaugh, my thought is that the Supreme Court needs to have people on it who are above reproach. That means even the appearance of impropriety should disqualify them. Republicans appointed Gorsuch, Alito, and Roberts all without these issues. They could easily have found a candidate without this issue. In fact they did with their very next candidate, Barrett.
easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 12th, '22, 08:44
It's not surprising that an allegation of a sexual assault that happened 40 years ago would be difficult to corroborate. I'm not saying it happened, but I also don't think it's a conspiracy theory. A person was willing to go under oath and endure a lot of scorn to make the claim. She may be lying, or perhaps maybe just mistaken, but that's not what constitutes a conspiracy theory. A conspiracy theory would be that Ford collaborated with Democrats to concoct a BS story to hurt the nomination of a judge.
You mean like hiring a leftist activist attorney instead of a criminal lawyer? You mean like Ford's story that Fords best friends who she said were there said they weren't there?
From the Washington Examiner:
But it is a speech Katz gave after Kavanaugh was approved in a 50-48 Senate vote where Lovelace said he found the key motivation for Ford’s tearful accusation that while in high school the federal judge attempted to rape her in a beer-fueled attack. In April this year, she spoke at the University of Baltimore’s 11th Feminist Legal Theory Conference titled “Applied Feminism and #MeToo.” Lovelace secured a video of her address and provided a clip to Secrets. In it, she said their goal was to put an “asterisk” on a prediction that Kavanaugh would rule to limit Roe v. Wade, though he had little history of attacking the 1973 decision to protect abortion.
“In the aftermath of these hearings, I believe that Christine’s testimony brought about more good than the harm misogynist Republicans caused by allowing Kavanaugh on the court. We were going to have a conservative [justice] … elections have consequences, but he will always have an asterisk next to his name. When he takes a scalpel to Roe v. Wade, we will know who he is, we know his character, and we know what motivates him, and that is important; it is important that we know, and that is part of what motivated Christine.”
easyrider16 wrote: ↑May 12th, '22, 08:44As to Kavanaugh, my thought is that the Supreme Court needs to have people on it who are above reproach. That means even the appearance of impropriety should disqualify them. Republicans appointed Gorsuch, Alito, and Roberts all without these issues. They could easily have found a candidate without this issue. In fact they did with their very next candidate, Barrett.
I agree in theory, but I have a problem with universally allowing targeted attacks to disqualify nominees. That encourages bringing about a tawdry appearance accusation for the disqualification of appointments, not a very good standard.
Mister Moose wrote: ↑May 12th, '22, 09:21
I agree in theory, but I have a problem with universally allowing targeted attacks to disqualify nominees. That encourages bringing about a tawdry appearance accusation for the disqualification of appointments, not a very good standard.
I understand your hesitation, but I would point out the fact that Republicans nominated three male Supreme Court justices prior to Kavanaugh, and none of them had such issues raised. I'd also argue that anyone who takes an honest look at what Ford went through would think twice before making such accusations in a similar case.
People seem to think that the 9 Supreme Court justices are chosen because they are the best of the best. That's not entirely the case. Fact is, there are dozens of candidates who are every bit as qualified, and some perhaps more so than the 9 we have sitting. If you want to pick a black female judge for the Supreme Court, you can find one that is extremely well qualified, as Jackson is. If you want to find another white guy like Alito, Gorsuch, or Kavanaugh, there are quite a few very qualified candidates to choose from. Heck, Trump had a list of like 46 candidates. Kavanaugh is not really that special. And wouldn't it be better for conservatives if the judge they appoint is someone more like Alito or Gorsuch, who are above such reproach?
Mister Moose wrote: ↑May 11th, '22, 21:11rac·ism
NOUN prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group
The confirmation and appointment is not sexist or racist. The limited selection pool of only black and only female is definitively sexist and racist. It's just 'good' sexism and 'good' racism. We should be beyond that.
Over his long career Biden hasn’t shown he is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards white men, so that leaves discrimination.
dis·crim·i·na·tion
NOUN
The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Given that 94% of the justices have been white men, I’d say they’ve been over represented on SCOTUS (wonder why) and thus choosing a nominee from an exclusive pool of qualified black women is neither unjust nor prejudicial. To claim otherwise is to ignore history and take a particularly myopic view of racism and sexism. We should be beyond that.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled against immigrants seeking judicial review of mistakes and errors made by immigration agencies. In a 5-4 majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that federal courts are categorically barred from considering such issues.
“It is no secret that when processing applications, licenses, and permits the government sometimes makes mistakes,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a passionate dissent. “Often, they are small ones—a misspelled name, a misplaced application. But sometimes a bureaucratic mistake can have life-changing consequences. Our case is such a case.”
Joined by Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, Gorsuch castigated the sweeping nature of the majority’s decision and its fealty to the administrative state.
“Today, the Court holds that a federal bureaucracy can make an obvious factual error, one that will result in an individual’s removal from this country, and nothing can be done about it,” the dissent notes. “No court may even hear the case. It is a bold claim promising dire consequences for countless lawful immigrants.”
Notwithstanding the fact that it is ridiculous on its face that someone facing deportation based on an obvious factual error can't get vindication in court, this is the sort of case that results in bigger government and reduced freedoms for us all. Not a great outcome.
Mister Moose wrote: ↑May 11th, '22, 21:11rac·ism
NOUN prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group
The confirmation and appointment is not sexist or racist. The limited selection pool of only black and only female is definitively sexist and racist. It's just 'good' sexism and 'good' racism. We should be beyond that.
Over his long career Biden hasn’t shown he is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards white men, so that leaves discrimination.
dis·crim·i·na·tion
NOUN
The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Given that 94% of the justices have been white men, I’d say they’ve been over represented on SCOTUS (wonder why) and thus choosing a nominee from an exclusive pool of qualified black women is neither unjust nor prejudicial. To claim otherwise is to ignore history and take a particularly myopic view of racism and sexism. We should be beyond that.
I think this falls into the "2 wrongs don't make a right" level of basic kindergarten ethics. Quoting past sexism/racism to justify present day but opposite sexism/racism doesn't hold water.
Mister Moose wrote: ↑May 11th, '22, 21:11rac·ism
NOUN prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group
The confirmation and appointment is not sexist or racist. The limited selection pool of only black and only female is definitively sexist and racist. It's just 'good' sexism and 'good' racism. We should be beyond that.
Over his long career Biden hasn’t shown he is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards white men, so that leaves discrimination.
dis·crim·i·na·tion
NOUN
The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Given that 94% of the justices have been white men, I’d say they’ve been over represented on SCOTUS (wonder why) and thus choosing a nominee from an exclusive pool of qualified black women is neither unjust nor prejudicial. To claim otherwise is to ignore history and take a particularly myopic view of racism and sexism. We should be beyond that.
I think this falls into the "2 wrongs don't make a right" level of basic kindergarten ethics. Quoting past sexism/racism to justify present day but opposite sexism/racism doesn't hold water.
As I said, that's a predictably myopic view. With the previous score 115-0 against black women on SCOTUS, now we want to everyone to play fair on an unlevel field.
So by your account, I assume you were equally outraged by Trump's blatant sexism when he announced before considering any nominees his replacement for RBG would be a woman.
Mister Moose wrote: ↑May 11th, '22, 21:11rac·ism
NOUN prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group
The confirmation and appointment is not sexist or racist. The limited selection pool of only black and only female is definitively sexist and racist. It's just 'good' sexism and 'good' racism. We should be beyond that.
Over his long career Biden hasn’t shown he is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards white men, so that leaves discrimination.
dis·crim·i·na·tion
NOUN
The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Given that 94% of the justices have been white men, I’d say they’ve been over represented on SCOTUS (wonder why) and thus choosing a nominee from an exclusive pool of qualified black women is neither unjust nor prejudicial. To claim otherwise is to ignore history and take a particularly myopic view of racism and sexism. We should be beyond that.
I think this falls into the "2 wrongs don't make a right" level of basic kindergarten ethics. Quoting past sexism/racism to justify present day but opposite sexism/racism doesn't hold water.
As I said, that's a predictably myopic view. With the previous score 115-0 against black women on SCOTUS, now we want to everyone to play fair on an unlevel field.
So by your account, I assume you were equally outraged by Trump's blatant sexism when he announced before considering any nominees his replacement for RBG would be a woman.
First point, yes. Using an all white men scoreboard starting from the beginning of the country during an all white men in government era is to ignore the historical context. We are evolving to what the founders envisioned but did not yet have, and should continue on that journey, not regress to another but somehow "better" form of racism/sexism.
Second point. Yes. I wasn't outraged in either case, but equally disappointed in both. It's pandering.
Mister Moose wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 10:41
First point, yes. Using an all white men scoreboard starting from the beginning of the country during an all white men in government era is to ignore the historical context. We are evolving to what the founders envisioned but did not yet have, and should continue on that journey, not regress to another but somehow "better" form of racism/sexism.
It doesn’t ignore the historical context, it shines a spotlight on it. The reason it took until 2022 for our country to confirm its first black woman for SCOTUS is plain and simple – institutional and systemic racism and sexism. You don't combat that by sticking with the status quo.
Mister Moose wrote: ↑May 19th, '22, 10:41
First point, yes. Using an all white men scoreboard starting from the beginning of the country during an all white men in government era is to ignore the historical context. We are evolving to what the founders envisioned but did not yet have, and should continue on that journey, not regress to another but somehow "better" form of racism/sexism.
It doesn’t ignore the historical context, it shines a spotlight on it. The reason it took until 2022 for our country to confirm its first black woman for SCOTUS is plain and simple – institutional and systemic racism and sexism. You don't combat that by sticking with the status quo.
You also don't combat it with more sexism and racism. Two wrongs still don't make a right.
