|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
edit: Nevermind, I'm stupid.
|
On January 27 2022 04:03 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 02:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:SCOTUS Justice Breyer is said to be retiring according to the NYT. Expectations are that Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a D.C. appeals court judge, to fulfil a promise to nominate a black woman. As with the VP pick, the framing here sucks. Would be better to look to nominate a top-tier legal expert who happens to be a black woman, rather than explicitly making it clear that the diversity quota, not quality of work, is the goal.
The irony here is that the supreme court is taking up affirmative action right now.
The idea that someone (or more likely a team of consultants) would think that hiring someone because they are a black woman, not because of their accomplishments, is progressive baffles me.
|
On January 27 2022 02:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:SCOTUS Justice Breyer is said to be retiring according to the NYT. Expectations are that Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a D.C. appeals court judge, to fulfil a promise to nominate a black woman.
I'm happy that Breyer's timely retirement is allowing Biden to replace a liberal judge with another liberal judge. If only the otherwise-amazing Ruth Bader Ginsburg had done the same, during Obama's presidency.
|
On January 27 2022 07:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 02:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:SCOTUS Justice Breyer is said to be retiring according to the NYT. Expectations are that Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a D.C. appeals court judge, to fulfil a promise to nominate a black woman. I'm happy that Breyer's timely retirement is allowing Biden to replace a liberal judge with another liberal judge. If only the otherwise-amazing Ruth Bader Ginsburg had done the same, during Obama's presidency.
I’m sure Breyer had her in mind when he made this retirement decision.
On January 27 2022 07:02 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 04:03 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2022 02:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:SCOTUS Justice Breyer is said to be retiring according to the NYT. Expectations are that Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a D.C. appeals court judge, to fulfil a promise to nominate a black woman. As with the VP pick, the framing here sucks. Would be better to look to nominate a top-tier legal expert who happens to be a black woman, rather than explicitly making it clear that the diversity quota, not quality of work, is the goal. The irony here is that the supreme court is taking up affirmative action right now. The idea that someone (or more likely a team of consultants) would think that hiring someone because they are a black woman, not because of their accomplishments, is progressive baffles me.
You’re baffled at the thought that minorities have an interest in being judged at least in part by people that look like them?
|
On January 27 2022 07:02 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 04:03 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2022 02:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:SCOTUS Justice Breyer is said to be retiring according to the NYT. Expectations are that Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a D.C. appeals court judge, to fulfil a promise to nominate a black woman. As with the VP pick, the framing here sucks. Would be better to look to nominate a top-tier legal expert who happens to be a black woman, rather than explicitly making it clear that the diversity quota, not quality of work, is the goal. The irony here is that the supreme court is taking up affirmative action right now. The idea that someone (or more likely a team of consultants) would think that hiring someone because they are a black woman, not because of their accomplishments, is progressive baffles me. In a perfect world everyone would be judged purely on their ability and there would be roughly even split between men and women anyway because that is roughly how the population works but we don't live in a world of perfect equality so sometimes you need to nudge things in the right direction to break the dominance of old white men in the hope that in the future it will no longer be needed to nudge and just become normal to have a SC judge that is not an old white man.
|
On January 27 2022 07:02 Dromar wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 04:03 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2022 02:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:SCOTUS Justice Breyer is said to be retiring according to the NYT. Expectations are that Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a D.C. appeals court judge, to fulfil a promise to nominate a black woman. As with the VP pick, the framing here sucks. Would be better to look to nominate a top-tier legal expert who happens to be a black woman, rather than explicitly making it clear that the diversity quota, not quality of work, is the goal. The irony here is that the supreme court is taking up affirmative action right now. The idea that someone (or more likely a team of consultants) would think that hiring someone because they are a black woman, not because of their accomplishments, is progressive baffles me.
The only way you could arise at this conclusion is if you assume there are zero black women inside the set of accomplished, qualified candidates for SCJ. That's nonsense. Most people would realize that diversity isn't in place of having proper credentials, but rather, an additional qualifier that helps narrow down the pool of already-top-tier judges. It's not like Biden said that he was going to appoint a moron to the Supreme Court just because the moron was a black woman.
|
On January 27 2022 07:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 07:02 Dromar wrote:On January 27 2022 04:03 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2022 02:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:SCOTUS Justice Breyer is said to be retiring according to the NYT. Expectations are that Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a D.C. appeals court judge, to fulfil a promise to nominate a black woman. As with the VP pick, the framing here sucks. Would be better to look to nominate a top-tier legal expert who happens to be a black woman, rather than explicitly making it clear that the diversity quota, not quality of work, is the goal. The irony here is that the supreme court is taking up affirmative action right now. The idea that someone (or more likely a team of consultants) would think that hiring someone because they are a black woman, not because of their accomplishments, is progressive baffles me. The only way you could arise at this conclusion is if you assume there are zero black women inside the set of accomplished, qualified candidates for SCJ. That's nonsense. Most people would realize that diversity isn't in place of having proper credentials, but rather, an additional qualifier that helps narrow down the pool of already-top-tier judges. It's not like Biden said that he was going to appoint a moron to the Supreme Court just because the moron was a black woman.
That was basically Kamala Harris and look where that decision got us. She couldn't get progress on any part of her portfolio.
|
On January 27 2022 07:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 07:02 Dromar wrote:On January 27 2022 04:03 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2022 02:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:SCOTUS Justice Breyer is said to be retiring according to the NYT. Expectations are that Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a D.C. appeals court judge, to fulfil a promise to nominate a black woman. As with the VP pick, the framing here sucks. Would be better to look to nominate a top-tier legal expert who happens to be a black woman, rather than explicitly making it clear that the diversity quota, not quality of work, is the goal. The irony here is that the supreme court is taking up affirmative action right now. The idea that someone (or more likely a team of consultants) would think that hiring someone because they are a black woman, not because of their accomplishments, is progressive baffles me. The only way you could arise at this conclusion is if you assume there are zero black women inside the set of accomplished, qualified candidates for SCJ. That's nonsense. Most people would realize that diversity isn't in place of having proper credentials, but rather, an additional qualifier that helps narrow down the pool of already-top-tier judges. It's not like Biden said that he was going to appoint a moron to the Supreme Court just because the moron was a black woman.
This is a great point. It ain’t a coincidence that the two most likely nominees currently serve on the California Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, and are black women.
|
On January 27 2022 07:46 gobbledydook wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 07:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2022 07:02 Dromar wrote:On January 27 2022 04:03 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2022 02:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:SCOTUS Justice Breyer is said to be retiring according to the NYT. Expectations are that Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a D.C. appeals court judge, to fulfil a promise to nominate a black woman. As with the VP pick, the framing here sucks. Would be better to look to nominate a top-tier legal expert who happens to be a black woman, rather than explicitly making it clear that the diversity quota, not quality of work, is the goal. The irony here is that the supreme court is taking up affirmative action right now. The idea that someone (or more likely a team of consultants) would think that hiring someone because they are a black woman, not because of their accomplishments, is progressive baffles me. The only way you could arise at this conclusion is if you assume there are zero black women inside the set of accomplished, qualified candidates for SCJ. That's nonsense. Most people would realize that diversity isn't in place of having proper credentials, but rather, an additional qualifier that helps narrow down the pool of already-top-tier judges. It's not like Biden said that he was going to appoint a moron to the Supreme Court just because the moron was a black woman. That was basically Kamala Harris and look where that decision got us. She couldn't get progress on any part of her portfolio.
Her ineffectiveness has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman of color.
|
Harris was definitely chosen due to the Floyd protests. There is no doubt Harris completely and totally sucks. I wish someone else were chosen. They made a mistake of confining themselves to other presidential candidates. There were plenty of great black women in politics to choose from other than Harris.
|
On January 27 2022 07:49 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 07:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2022 07:02 Dromar wrote:On January 27 2022 04:03 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2022 02:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:SCOTUS Justice Breyer is said to be retiring according to the NYT. Expectations are that Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a D.C. appeals court judge, to fulfil a promise to nominate a black woman. As with the VP pick, the framing here sucks. Would be better to look to nominate a top-tier legal expert who happens to be a black woman, rather than explicitly making it clear that the diversity quota, not quality of work, is the goal. The irony here is that the supreme court is taking up affirmative action right now. The idea that someone (or more likely a team of consultants) would think that hiring someone because they are a black woman, not because of their accomplishments, is progressive baffles me. The only way you could arise at this conclusion is if you assume there are zero black women inside the set of accomplished, qualified candidates for SCJ. That's nonsense. Most people would realize that diversity isn't in place of having proper credentials, but rather, an additional qualifier that helps narrow down the pool of already-top-tier judges. It's not like Biden said that he was going to appoint a moron to the Supreme Court just because the moron was a black woman. This is a great point. It ain’t a coincidence that the two most likely nominees currently serve on the California Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, and are black women.
Right. And I see the racist/sexist mindset quite a bit from conservatives: The idea that women or people of color should be considered or hired somehow translates that these individuals are necessarily inferior to the "truly qualified" individuals, which is implying that only white men are top tier, while anyone else is merely an inferior diversity hire.
|
On January 27 2022 07:49 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 07:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2022 07:02 Dromar wrote:On January 27 2022 04:03 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2022 02:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:SCOTUS Justice Breyer is said to be retiring according to the NYT. Expectations are that Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a D.C. appeals court judge, to fulfil a promise to nominate a black woman. As with the VP pick, the framing here sucks. Would be better to look to nominate a top-tier legal expert who happens to be a black woman, rather than explicitly making it clear that the diversity quota, not quality of work, is the goal. The irony here is that the supreme court is taking up affirmative action right now. The idea that someone (or more likely a team of consultants) would think that hiring someone because they are a black woman, not because of their accomplishments, is progressive baffles me. The only way you could arise at this conclusion is if you assume there are zero black women inside the set of accomplished, qualified candidates for SCJ. That's nonsense. Most people would realize that diversity isn't in place of having proper credentials, but rather, an additional qualifier that helps narrow down the pool of already-top-tier judges. It's not like Biden said that he was going to appoint a moron to the Supreme Court just because the moron was a black woman. This is a great point. It ain’t a coincidence that the two most likely nominees currently serve on the California Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, and are black women.
i cba having an argument about it in this thread of all places but i wholly reject the idea that singling out black women isn’t it’s own credential. i was disappointed with the predictable outlash of ‘you could make this less clearly an affirmative action pick.’
there is inherent value in having a diverse set. because she is a black woman sets her above her white colleagues in selecting a justice in a historically white group.
obviously one should be, and by all accounts seems to be, credentialed on top of her race. but being black sets her above. clearly. there is tangible value in bringing diverse perspective forward and it should be heralded for that reason as much as any other.
i’ll be honest that i have no intention to defend my position so do with it what you will. but if it upsets you, you would be benefited by reading up on the very real benefits of diversity.
in 2022 this should no longer be an acceptable knee jerk reaction.
edit: not directed at farvacola, but the conversation in whole.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 27 2022 07:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 07:46 gobbledydook wrote:On January 27 2022 07:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2022 07:02 Dromar wrote:On January 27 2022 04:03 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2022 02:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:SCOTUS Justice Breyer is said to be retiring according to the NYT. Expectations are that Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a D.C. appeals court judge, to fulfil a promise to nominate a black woman. As with the VP pick, the framing here sucks. Would be better to look to nominate a top-tier legal expert who happens to be a black woman, rather than explicitly making it clear that the diversity quota, not quality of work, is the goal. The irony here is that the supreme court is taking up affirmative action right now. The idea that someone (or more likely a team of consultants) would think that hiring someone because they are a black woman, not because of their accomplishments, is progressive baffles me. The only way you could arise at this conclusion is if you assume there are zero black women inside the set of accomplished, qualified candidates for SCJ. That's nonsense. Most people would realize that diversity isn't in place of having proper credentials, but rather, an additional qualifier that helps narrow down the pool of already-top-tier judges. It's not like Biden said that he was going to appoint a moron to the Supreme Court just because the moron was a black woman. That was basically Kamala Harris and look where that decision got us. She couldn't get progress on any part of her portfolio. Her ineffectiveness has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman of color.
But it does put a hole into your theory that
On January 27 2022 07:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
diversity isn't in place of having proper credentials, but rather, an additional qualifier that helps narrow down the pool of already-top-tier judges
|
We went through a big ol’ process for narrowing down candidates for President and I don’t know that I’d say we had a bountiful crop of top-quality candidates to narrow down with any additional qualifiers.
Who are people wishing for VP instead of Kamala? I remember thinking there weren’t a ton of great alternatives.
|
On January 27 2022 09:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 07:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2022 07:46 gobbledydook wrote:On January 27 2022 07:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2022 07:02 Dromar wrote:On January 27 2022 04:03 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2022 02:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:SCOTUS Justice Breyer is said to be retiring according to the NYT. Expectations are that Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a D.C. appeals court judge, to fulfil a promise to nominate a black woman. As with the VP pick, the framing here sucks. Would be better to look to nominate a top-tier legal expert who happens to be a black woman, rather than explicitly making it clear that the diversity quota, not quality of work, is the goal. The irony here is that the supreme court is taking up affirmative action right now. The idea that someone (or more likely a team of consultants) would think that hiring someone because they are a black woman, not because of their accomplishments, is progressive baffles me. The only way you could arise at this conclusion is if you assume there are zero black women inside the set of accomplished, qualified candidates for SCJ. That's nonsense. Most people would realize that diversity isn't in place of having proper credentials, but rather, an additional qualifier that helps narrow down the pool of already-top-tier judges. It's not like Biden said that he was going to appoint a moron to the Supreme Court just because the moron was a black woman. That was basically Kamala Harris and look where that decision got us. She couldn't get progress on any part of her portfolio. Her ineffectiveness has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman of color. But it does put a hole into your theory that Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 07:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
diversity isn't in place of having proper credentials, but rather, an additional qualifier that helps narrow down the pool of already-top-tier judges
At the very least it shows that Biden is willing to favor diversity over ability, even if it's not necessary/wise to do so (though maybe the pool for "good VP/successor" is a shorter list than "good supreme court nominee").
At any rate, Biden can't afford to blow this and if he picks someone at least facially qualified he'll get all the dems +Collins, Murkowski, Graham, and very possibly even a few more. Won't change November at all, but blowing it certainly could make what is likely a rough senate year even worse I suppose.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 27 2022 09:04 ChristianS wrote:
We went through a big ol’ process for narrowing down candidates for President and I don’t know that I’d say we had a bountiful crop of top-quality candidates to narrow down with any additional qualifiers.
Who are people wishing for VP instead of Kamala? I remember thinking there weren’t a ton of great alternatives.
A good candidate would have been someone who has strong "if Biden keels over, this person will be able to keep the lights on until next election" appeal. A young upstart from the progressive camp, or one of the party-favorite upstarts that people are at least ambivalent about (e.g. Julian Castro and Cory Booker), or an old holdover from the Obama administration (maybe John Kerry or Susan Rice or something).
It seemed at the time of promise that Biden was saying "I care more about making a diversity hire than about picking someone who will be a good VP." That perception was clearly correct and gives no trust in him promising another diversity hire and expecting that said hire will be well vetted for competence.
|
On January 27 2022 09:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 09:04 ChristianS wrote:
We went through a big ol’ process for narrowing down candidates for President and I don’t know that I’d say we had a bountiful crop of top-quality candidates to narrow down with any additional qualifiers.
Who are people wishing for VP instead of Kamala? I remember thinking there weren’t a ton of great alternatives. A good candidate would have been someone who has strong "if Biden keels over, this person will be able to keep the lights on until next election" appeal. A young upstart from the progressive camp, or one of the party-favorite upstarts that people are at least ambivalent about (e.g. Julian Castro and Cory Booker), or an old holdover from the Obama administration (maybe John Kerry or Susan Rice or something). It seemed at the time of promise that Biden was saying "I care more about making a diversity hire than about picking someone who will be a good VP." That perception was clearly correct and gives no trust in him promising another diversity hire and expecting that said hire will be well vetted for competence.
He still could have done a diversity hire while having a good candidate if he didn't decide the candidate had to be one of the people who ran for president
|
On January 27 2022 09:00 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 07:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2022 07:46 gobbledydook wrote:On January 27 2022 07:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2022 07:02 Dromar wrote:On January 27 2022 04:03 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2022 02:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:SCOTUS Justice Breyer is said to be retiring according to the NYT. Expectations are that Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a D.C. appeals court judge, to fulfil a promise to nominate a black woman. As with the VP pick, the framing here sucks. Would be better to look to nominate a top-tier legal expert who happens to be a black woman, rather than explicitly making it clear that the diversity quota, not quality of work, is the goal. The irony here is that the supreme court is taking up affirmative action right now. The idea that someone (or more likely a team of consultants) would think that hiring someone because they are a black woman, not because of their accomplishments, is progressive baffles me. The only way you could arise at this conclusion is if you assume there are zero black women inside the set of accomplished, qualified candidates for SCJ. That's nonsense. Most people would realize that diversity isn't in place of having proper credentials, but rather, an additional qualifier that helps narrow down the pool of already-top-tier judges. It's not like Biden said that he was going to appoint a moron to the Supreme Court just because the moron was a black woman. That was basically Kamala Harris and look where that decision got us. She couldn't get progress on any part of her portfolio. Her ineffectiveness has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman of color. But it does put a hole into your theory that Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 07:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
diversity isn't in place of having proper credentials, but rather, an additional qualifier that helps narrow down the pool of already-top-tier judges
Did you want to elaborate on why you think that's the case, or...?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 27 2022 09:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 09:00 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2022 07:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2022 07:46 gobbledydook wrote:On January 27 2022 07:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2022 07:02 Dromar wrote:On January 27 2022 04:03 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2022 02:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:SCOTUS Justice Breyer is said to be retiring according to the NYT. Expectations are that Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a D.C. appeals court judge, to fulfil a promise to nominate a black woman. As with the VP pick, the framing here sucks. Would be better to look to nominate a top-tier legal expert who happens to be a black woman, rather than explicitly making it clear that the diversity quota, not quality of work, is the goal. The irony here is that the supreme court is taking up affirmative action right now. The idea that someone (or more likely a team of consultants) would think that hiring someone because they are a black woman, not because of their accomplishments, is progressive baffles me. The only way you could arise at this conclusion is if you assume there are zero black women inside the set of accomplished, qualified candidates for SCJ. That's nonsense. Most people would realize that diversity isn't in place of having proper credentials, but rather, an additional qualifier that helps narrow down the pool of already-top-tier judges. It's not like Biden said that he was going to appoint a moron to the Supreme Court just because the moron was a black woman. That was basically Kamala Harris and look where that decision got us. She couldn't get progress on any part of her portfolio. Her ineffectiveness has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman of color. But it does put a hole into your theory that On January 27 2022 07:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
diversity isn't in place of having proper credentials, but rather, an additional qualifier that helps narrow down the pool of already-top-tier judges Did you want to elaborate on why you think that's the case, or...?
I'm not sure what there is that needs spelling out here. You say "diversity hire doesn't mean candidate competence will get ignored." Someone gives a counterexample where a diversity hire's competence was ignored in a choice made by Biden. You reply that "yes, but that's not because she's a diversity hire." And yes, that might be true, but it sure puts a hole in the original theory that obviously competence is a given and the diversity hire is just whittling down the candidate short list, because there's a clear counterexample where diversity hire was the stated goal but competence did not happen.
|
On January 27 2022 09:58 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2022 09:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2022 09:00 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2022 07:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2022 07:46 gobbledydook wrote:On January 27 2022 07:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 27 2022 07:02 Dromar wrote:On January 27 2022 04:03 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2022 02:26 PhoenixVoid wrote:SCOTUS Justice Breyer is said to be retiring according to the NYT. Expectations are that Biden will nominate Ketanji Brown Jackson, a D.C. appeals court judge, to fulfil a promise to nominate a black woman. As with the VP pick, the framing here sucks. Would be better to look to nominate a top-tier legal expert who happens to be a black woman, rather than explicitly making it clear that the diversity quota, not quality of work, is the goal. The irony here is that the supreme court is taking up affirmative action right now. The idea that someone (or more likely a team of consultants) would think that hiring someone because they are a black woman, not because of their accomplishments, is progressive baffles me. The only way you could arise at this conclusion is if you assume there are zero black women inside the set of accomplished, qualified candidates for SCJ. That's nonsense. Most people would realize that diversity isn't in place of having proper credentials, but rather, an additional qualifier that helps narrow down the pool of already-top-tier judges. It's not like Biden said that he was going to appoint a moron to the Supreme Court just because the moron was a black woman. That was basically Kamala Harris and look where that decision got us. She couldn't get progress on any part of her portfolio. Her ineffectiveness has nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman of color. But it does put a hole into your theory that On January 27 2022 07:43 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
diversity isn't in place of having proper credentials, but rather, an additional qualifier that helps narrow down the pool of already-top-tier judges Did you want to elaborate on why you think that's the case, or...? I'm not sure what there is that needs spelling out here. You say "diversity hire doesn't mean candidate competence will get ignored." Someone gives a counterexample where a diversity hire's competence was ignored in a choice made by Biden. You reply that "yes, but that's not because she's a diversity hire." And yes, that might be true, but it sure puts a hole in the original theory that obviously competence is a given and the diversity hire is just whittling down the candidate short list, because there's a clear counterexample where diversity hire was the stated goal but competence did not happen.
Harris was not incompetent nor an unqualified vice presidential pick, so it's certainly not a counterexample. You're setting an obscenely high bar for her, compared to other individuals. You know she was a Senator, right? You know she had experience in politics, right? You know she's done just as much as VP, based on what's expected of a VP (e.g., tiebreaking votes in Senate) as Mike Pence (white, male) and VP Joe Biden (white, male). VPs never get much attention; that doesn't mean she didn't have a decent resume. She wasn't some arbitrary woman of color, and there have been far less qualified VP and even P candidates, many of whom were white and male. She's doing the same job as white men in her position.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
