|
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 |
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
On January 28 2022 18:35 Silvanel wrote:I must admit when You see headlines like this: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-60163694 it makes an impression that race and gender is more important then qualifications. The other impression I have (about USSC) is that the only qualifiaction that is really needed is willingness to vote along party lines. I am sure that is not the case but thats how it looks from outside.
The alternative to be fair is that the most qualified individuals almost invariably happen to be white blokes, entirely coincidentally.
|
I am not going to discuss this further as clearly the views on this issue are vastly different in present or former British colonies than in rest of the world.
|
On January 28 2022 18:40 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 18:35 Silvanel wrote:I must admit when You see headlines like this: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-60163694 it makes an impression that race and gender is more important then qualifications. The other impression I have (about USSC) is that the only qualifiaction that is really needed is willingness to vote along party lines. I am sure that is not the case but thats how it looks from outside. The alternative to be fair is that the most qualified individuals almost invariably happen to be white blokes, entirely coincidentally.
Define most qualified. Because insofar as I understand there are plenty of black women who are just as learned in the law as these white blokes. So if understanding of the US law is the only real criteria for becoming a SC judge, it shouldn't be hard to find a black woman. Despite there being more old white men who could fit that bill.
And I'm absolutely convinced that there are plenty of black women who are more qualified than Brett "I like beer" Kavanaugh.
|
@Acrofales
I think WombaT was being sarcastic.
|
If Joe Biden wants to nominate a Black woman I guess that's his right. I suppose we're at the point where it's socially acceptable to exclude whites from consideration but I don't understand how it's also socially acceptable to exclude Asians/Hispanics? I guess we have Sotomayor so we already got one of them, no need for another? I'm not sure how any of this works.
|
On January 28 2022 20:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Joe Biden wants to nominate a Black woman I guess that's his right. I suppose we're at the point where it's socially acceptable to exclude whites from consideration but I don't understand how it's also socially acceptable to exclude Asians/Hispanics? I guess we have Sotomayor so we already got one of them, no need for another? I'm not sure how any of this works.
He only gets to nominate one SCJ, for now, and the more restrictions you put on the position (must be female, black, ....and also Asian and also Hispanic... and also a Muslim and also LGBTQ and also...), the smaller the pool of qualified candidates ends up being. For what it's worth, Kamala Harris checked off multiple boxes: African American, female, Asian American. Also, Biden's cabinet is extremely diverse, and includes White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and even Native American: https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/2021/02/05/963837953/biden-pledged-historic-cabinet-diversity-heres-how-his-nominees-stack-up
He's definitely done a good job in terms of diversity. Obama did, too.
|
United States44195 Posts
If we acknowledge that historically race and gender have been barriers due to prejudice then we must conclude that, on average, any black women even being considered for SCOTUS is likely to be a more exceptional individual than her white male peers.
|
On January 28 2022 20:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 20:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Joe Biden wants to nominate a Black woman I guess that's his right. I suppose we're at the point where it's socially acceptable to exclude whites from consideration but I don't understand how it's also socially acceptable to exclude Asians/Hispanics? I guess we have Sotomayor so we already got one of them, no need for another? I'm not sure how any of this works. He only gets to nominate one SCJ, for now, and the more restrictions you put on the position (must be female, black, ....and also Asian and also Hispanic... and also a Muslim and also LGBTQ and also...), the smaller the pool of qualified candidates ends up being. For what it's worth, Kamala Harris checked off multiple boxes: African American, female, Asian American. Also, Biden's cabinet is extremely diverse, and includes White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and even Native American: https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/2021/02/05/963837953/biden-pledged-historic-cabinet-diversity-heres-how-his-nominees-stack-up He's definitely done a good job in terms of diversity. Obama did, too.
My point was that there should be fewer restrictions on who should be considered. If you admit that you will only consider black women then it's logically the same as saying you refuse to consider any candidate that is Hispanic or Asian. I find that to be very prejudiced/racist but I guess most people are okay with it.
|
On January 28 2022 21:17 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 20:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 28 2022 20:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Joe Biden wants to nominate a Black woman I guess that's his right. I suppose we're at the point where it's socially acceptable to exclude whites from consideration but I don't understand how it's also socially acceptable to exclude Asians/Hispanics? I guess we have Sotomayor so we already got one of them, no need for another? I'm not sure how any of this works. He only gets to nominate one SCJ, for now, and the more restrictions you put on the position (must be female, black, ....and also Asian and also Hispanic... and also a Muslim and also LGBTQ and also...), the smaller the pool of qualified candidates ends up being. For what it's worth, Kamala Harris checked off multiple boxes: African American, female, Asian American. Also, Biden's cabinet is extremely diverse, and includes White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and even Native American: https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/2021/02/05/963837953/biden-pledged-historic-cabinet-diversity-heres-how-his-nominees-stack-up He's definitely done a good job in terms of diversity. Obama did, too. My point was that there should be fewer restrictions on who should be considered. If you admit that you will only consider black women then it's logically the same as saying you refuse to consider any candidate that is Hispanic or Asian. I find that to be very prejudiced/racist but I guess most people are okay with it.
There's the problem, haha.
|
On January 28 2022 21:17 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 20:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 28 2022 20:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Joe Biden wants to nominate a Black woman I guess that's his right. I suppose we're at the point where it's socially acceptable to exclude whites from consideration but I don't understand how it's also socially acceptable to exclude Asians/Hispanics? I guess we have Sotomayor so we already got one of them, no need for another? I'm not sure how any of this works. He only gets to nominate one SCJ, for now, and the more restrictions you put on the position (must be female, black, ....and also Asian and also Hispanic... and also a Muslim and also LGBTQ and also...), the smaller the pool of qualified candidates ends up being. For what it's worth, Kamala Harris checked off multiple boxes: African American, female, Asian American. Also, Biden's cabinet is extremely diverse, and includes White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and even Native American: https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/2021/02/05/963837953/biden-pledged-historic-cabinet-diversity-heres-how-his-nominees-stack-up He's definitely done a good job in terms of diversity. Obama did, too. My point was that there should be fewer restrictions on who should be considered. If you admit that you will only consider black women then it's logically the same as saying you refuse to consider any candidate that is Hispanic or Asian. I find that to be very prejudiced/racist but I guess most people are okay with it.
You have it completely backwards. I literally just mentioned Kamala Harris, who is Black and also Asian American. Being Black doesn't mean you can't also be Hispanic. Biden didn't say that he was refusing to consider candidates who also had Hispanic or Asian heritage, just that he was going to make sure the candidate was Black. They can certainly be mixed-race, or whatever, as long as that includes Black (based on Biden's criterion). He may end up choosing someone who's only Black, or he may choose someone who's a mix of Black and other heritages/races.
|
I suppose "black woman" doesn't necessarily exclude biracial/multiracial people. Or even bigendered or multigendered people for that matter. I guess it's a little more inclusive to only exclude say 99% of Asians instead of 100% of Asians.
|
On January 28 2022 21:51 BlackJack wrote:
I suppose "black woman" doesn't necessarily exclude biracial/multiracial people. Or even bigendered or multigendered people for that matter. I guess it's a little more inclusive to only exclude say 99% of Asians instead of 100% of Asians.
The guy compiles the most diverse set of appointees in the history of our country, including Asian representation in both his Cabinet and literally his Vice President, and yet you're criticizing him for excluding Asians. There are so many other legitimate things to critique Biden on, but I think with this situation, you're just trying to be contrarian.
|
On January 28 2022 21:17 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 20:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 28 2022 20:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Joe Biden wants to nominate a Black woman I guess that's his right. I suppose we're at the point where it's socially acceptable to exclude whites from consideration but I don't understand how it's also socially acceptable to exclude Asians/Hispanics? I guess we have Sotomayor so we already got one of them, no need for another? I'm not sure how any of this works. He only gets to nominate one SCJ, for now, and the more restrictions you put on the position (must be female, black, ....and also Asian and also Hispanic... and also a Muslim and also LGBTQ and also...), the smaller the pool of qualified candidates ends up being. For what it's worth, Kamala Harris checked off multiple boxes: African American, female, Asian American. Also, Biden's cabinet is extremely diverse, and includes White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and even Native American: https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/2021/02/05/963837953/biden-pledged-historic-cabinet-diversity-heres-how-his-nominees-stack-up He's definitely done a good job in terms of diversity. Obama did, too. My point was that there should be fewer restrictions on who should be considered. If you admit that you will only consider black women then it's logically the same as saying you refuse to consider any candidate that is Hispanic or Asian. I find that to be very prejudiced/racist but I guess most people are okay with it.
People are 'okay' with it, because the alternative isn't 'oh, I guess he wants to exclude hispanic and asian, what a racist'. The alternative is 'let's just go with a non-controversial old white man'.
Framing the intent of wanting to add diversity to the supreme court as racist takes quite a lot of obfuscation.
|
On January 28 2022 22:16 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 21:17 BlackJack wrote:On January 28 2022 20:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 28 2022 20:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Joe Biden wants to nominate a Black woman I guess that's his right. I suppose we're at the point where it's socially acceptable to exclude whites from consideration but I don't understand how it's also socially acceptable to exclude Asians/Hispanics? I guess we have Sotomayor so we already got one of them, no need for another? I'm not sure how any of this works. He only gets to nominate one SCJ, for now, and the more restrictions you put on the position (must be female, black, ....and also Asian and also Hispanic... and also a Muslim and also LGBTQ and also...), the smaller the pool of qualified candidates ends up being. For what it's worth, Kamala Harris checked off multiple boxes: African American, female, Asian American. Also, Biden's cabinet is extremely diverse, and includes White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and even Native American: https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/2021/02/05/963837953/biden-pledged-historic-cabinet-diversity-heres-how-his-nominees-stack-up He's definitely done a good job in terms of diversity. Obama did, too. My point was that there should be fewer restrictions on who should be considered. If you admit that you will only consider black women then it's logically the same as saying you refuse to consider any candidate that is Hispanic or Asian. I find that to be very prejudiced/racist but I guess most people are okay with it. People are 'okay' with it, because the alternative isn't 'oh, I guess he wants to exclude hispanic and asian, what a racist'. The alternative is 'let's just go with a non-controversial old white man'. Framing the intent of wanting to add diversity to the supreme court as racist takes quite a lot of obfuscation.
DPB says Joe Biden has the most diverse set of appointees ever and you're saying that unless he explicitly sets out to appoint a black woman to SCOTUS then he just won't be able to help himself from nominating another white man?
|
On January 28 2022 22:27 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 22:16 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 28 2022 21:17 BlackJack wrote:On January 28 2022 20:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 28 2022 20:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Joe Biden wants to nominate a Black woman I guess that's his right. I suppose we're at the point where it's socially acceptable to exclude whites from consideration but I don't understand how it's also socially acceptable to exclude Asians/Hispanics? I guess we have Sotomayor so we already got one of them, no need for another? I'm not sure how any of this works. He only gets to nominate one SCJ, for now, and the more restrictions you put on the position (must be female, black, ....and also Asian and also Hispanic... and also a Muslim and also LGBTQ and also...), the smaller the pool of qualified candidates ends up being. For what it's worth, Kamala Harris checked off multiple boxes: African American, female, Asian American. Also, Biden's cabinet is extremely diverse, and includes White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and even Native American: https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/2021/02/05/963837953/biden-pledged-historic-cabinet-diversity-heres-how-his-nominees-stack-up He's definitely done a good job in terms of diversity. Obama did, too. My point was that there should be fewer restrictions on who should be considered. If you admit that you will only consider black women then it's logically the same as saying you refuse to consider any candidate that is Hispanic or Asian. I find that to be very prejudiced/racist but I guess most people are okay with it. People are 'okay' with it, because the alternative isn't 'oh, I guess he wants to exclude hispanic and asian, what a racist'. The alternative is 'let's just go with a non-controversial old white man'. Framing the intent of wanting to add diversity to the supreme court as racist takes quite a lot of obfuscation. DPB says Joe Biden has the most diverse set of appointees ever and you're saying that unless he explicitly sets out to appoint a black woman to SCOTUS then he just won't be able to help himself from nominating another white man?
Nope. I said 'framing the intent of adding diversity to SCOTUS as racist requires a lot of obfuscation'.
|
|
|
On January 28 2022 22:30 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 22:27 BlackJack wrote:On January 28 2022 22:16 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 28 2022 21:17 BlackJack wrote:On January 28 2022 20:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 28 2022 20:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Joe Biden wants to nominate a Black woman I guess that's his right. I suppose we're at the point where it's socially acceptable to exclude whites from consideration but I don't understand how it's also socially acceptable to exclude Asians/Hispanics? I guess we have Sotomayor so we already got one of them, no need for another? I'm not sure how any of this works. He only gets to nominate one SCJ, for now, and the more restrictions you put on the position (must be female, black, ....and also Asian and also Hispanic... and also a Muslim and also LGBTQ and also...), the smaller the pool of qualified candidates ends up being. For what it's worth, Kamala Harris checked off multiple boxes: African American, female, Asian American. Also, Biden's cabinet is extremely diverse, and includes White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and even Native American: https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/2021/02/05/963837953/biden-pledged-historic-cabinet-diversity-heres-how-his-nominees-stack-up He's definitely done a good job in terms of diversity. Obama did, too. My point was that there should be fewer restrictions on who should be considered. If you admit that you will only consider black women then it's logically the same as saying you refuse to consider any candidate that is Hispanic or Asian. I find that to be very prejudiced/racist but I guess most people are okay with it. People are 'okay' with it, because the alternative isn't 'oh, I guess he wants to exclude hispanic and asian, what a racist'. The alternative is 'let's just go with a non-controversial old white man'. Framing the intent of wanting to add diversity to the supreme court as racist takes quite a lot of obfuscation. DPB says Joe Biden has the most diverse set of appointees ever and you're saying that unless he explicitly sets out to appoint a black woman to SCOTUS then he just won't be able to help himself from nominating another white man? Nope. I said 'framing the intent of adding diversity to SCOTUS as racist requires a lot of obfuscation'.
Oh I was referring to the other half of your post
|
On January 28 2022 22:36 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 28 2022 22:30 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 28 2022 22:27 BlackJack wrote:On January 28 2022 22:16 EnDeR_ wrote:On January 28 2022 21:17 BlackJack wrote:On January 28 2022 20:54 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On January 28 2022 20:10 BlackJack wrote:
If Joe Biden wants to nominate a Black woman I guess that's his right. I suppose we're at the point where it's socially acceptable to exclude whites from consideration but I don't understand how it's also socially acceptable to exclude Asians/Hispanics? I guess we have Sotomayor so we already got one of them, no need for another? I'm not sure how any of this works. He only gets to nominate one SCJ, for now, and the more restrictions you put on the position (must be female, black, ....and also Asian and also Hispanic... and also a Muslim and also LGBTQ and also...), the smaller the pool of qualified candidates ends up being. For what it's worth, Kamala Harris checked off multiple boxes: African American, female, Asian American. Also, Biden's cabinet is extremely diverse, and includes White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, and even Native American: https://www.npr.org/sections/president-biden-takes-office/2021/02/05/963837953/biden-pledged-historic-cabinet-diversity-heres-how-his-nominees-stack-up He's definitely done a good job in terms of diversity. Obama did, too. My point was that there should be fewer restrictions on who should be considered. If you admit that you will only consider black women then it's logically the same as saying you refuse to consider any candidate that is Hispanic or Asian. I find that to be very prejudiced/racist but I guess most people are okay with it. People are 'okay' with it, because the alternative isn't 'oh, I guess he wants to exclude hispanic and asian, what a racist'. The alternative is 'let's just go with a non-controversial old white man'. Framing the intent of wanting to add diversity to the supreme court as racist takes quite a lot of obfuscation. DPB says Joe Biden has the most diverse set of appointees ever and you're saying that unless he explicitly sets out to appoint a black woman to SCOTUS then he just won't be able to help himself from nominating another white man? Nope. I said 'framing the intent of adding diversity to SCOTUS as racist requires a lot of obfuscation'. Oh I was referring to the other half of your post
EnDeR_ is speaking about the historical stereotype of defaulting to a pick of old, white men unless otherwise looking for someone else. It's not like an Asian is the status quo that's expected to be picked if a Black person isn't. It's almost always been an old, white man; that's the historical alternative.
|
United States24782 Posts
Yeah, it seems like often the choices are "We are considering all candidates" --> pick old white man 99% of the time due to various biases in the system, or "we're not going to pick an old white man this time because we don't want a uniform panel." As soon as the biases go away, it also becomes wrong to say "we're not going to pick an old white man this time," but we obviously aren't there by a longshot.
|
On the one hand, it's not lost on me that if you always pick on "best candidate on merits" then you will lean very much towards white males in all major appointments since they're systematically overrepresented in the viable candidate pool for any position worth having. On the other hand, there's a balance to be had here, and "diversity engineering" via systematic and overt reverse discrimination ain't it. Besides being excellent cover for any other kind of bad behavior, it doesn't solve the problem we should be solving: diversity in the candidate pool itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
