|
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 |
On January 29 2022 02:41 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2022 02:28 Dan HH wrote:On January 29 2022 01:13 JimmiC wrote:On January 29 2022 01:02 Dan HH wrote:On January 29 2022 00:39 JimmiC wrote:On January 29 2022 00:12 Dan HH wrote:On January 28 2022 23:22 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2022 23:08 micronesia wrote:
via intentionally selecting demographically diverse candidates There are plenty of other underrepresented groups we could also put on the court, like a Muslim, or atheist, Asian, Native American, etc. Almost sounds like this isn't really about diversity, but about discrimination based on some other form of political gain This is the part where the others lose me. Ethically, excluding people from the hiring process because of their ethnicity/gender/sexuality/religion is virtually the same as firing someone because of their ethnicity/gender/sexuality/religion as far as I'm concerned. I'm okay with Biden having a preference for what underrepresented boxes a candidate should ideally tick, but promising to not even look at anyone that doesn't tick 2 specific boxes before even having a name to advance is utterly wrong. If he said he was only going to pick someone with a 4.0 grade point average in College would that be wrong to exclude all the others that did not? I'm sorry but this is an asinine question, the answer is obviously no based on my first paragraph. Surely you see the difference between telling someone you're firing them because they have the lowest sales vs telling someone you're firing them because they are muslim. I do, but firing and hiring are also difference. Once is based on actual performance and one is based on potential performance. Being a 4.0 student vs a 3.7 student does not make one better at most jobs, I'm not even sure if there is any data to say that there is any correlation at all and yet we are OK with it as criteria. There is tons of data that say that a more diverse group preforms better, so why would you not make that a criteria when talking about hiring for a group. The thing with SCJ is it is a group and putting the 7 best individuals together by any criteria will not necessarily give the best outcomes. It is harder to see when they are hiring just one person because it feels "unfair" but if you want the highest preforming group you want to see what your group has, what it is missing and then add the missing part. We're ok with it as a criteria because you have at least some degree of control over it. And performance numbers can be misleading as well. That's not the issue and neither is the consequentialist approach to diversity/representation. There are two distinct actions here: - actually appointing a black woman - announcing that you are excluding all but black women from consideration All the outcome-based arguments here in favor of Biden's approach only apply to the former, and all the criticisms only apply to the latter. Our positions aren't incompatible. If he had just named an actual person that is a black woman directly we wouldn't be having this conversation and nothing would be lost. Bragging beforehand about discriminating against all other underrepresented groups because they happen to be less politically useful at this time is not a step towards the society we want. I'm sure that if before naming anyone, Trump would have preceded that by announcing that the next SCJ will be a white christian you would have seen this distinction clearly. It is so strange that you and others keep saying the problem is that he announced it. That means you disagree with the criteria. Or you prefer to be lied too. I also think its funny this other unrepresented group thing, yet the people complaining about it are almost exclusively white males. A black woman will likely be seen as progress for other under represented groups and give them hope that they will have a chance in the the future. A Hispanic Justice would be a great addition, hopefully that comes soon. If the SJC had not white Christians, given the US demographics I would think adding one to the group would totally make sense. If it was it was it currently constructed it would be disturbing. And the reality it for both of Trumps appointment it likely was, especially the Christian part but likely the White as well. That he didn't say it aloud just stays true to his character of bull shit. It is also asinine to assume that before the statement was made that they didn't already have a shortlist or even a person picked that met all the other criteria.
I'm going to try to steelman (or perhaps rephrase) their issue with the matter, if for no other reason than to help myself understand it (and if I'm misrepresenting their position, I hope they correct me).
I think what they would have preferred is: Biden looks at all the candidates on paper, completely color blind and not taking diversity into consideration, and then picking who he believes would be the best SCJ... and then later on, after he picks who he truly thinks is best, he learns that the candidate he chose also happens to be a black woman. That way, the outcome (choosing a black woman) is still retained, but it wasn't an initial, relevant, motivating ("biased") factor in the selection process, and everyone was given a fair shot because no one was preemptively excluded.
I think that's their general position.
Assuming my interpretation is reasonably accurate, my main concern (and I think one of the concerns that others have) is that diversity can actually be an inherently good thing, and so it ought to count as one of the (many) factors in the selection process, that we specifically control for. And that means *not* being blind to color or other aspects of identity (e.g., sex), so that we actually have a more representative Supreme Court.
And then some individuals counter with "Well, how do we know which identities to include and which to exclude? I get that we don't want yet another stereotypical old, white man, but what about the spectrum of other identities outside of Black + Woman?" And to that, as we've mentioned before, we point out that Biden has already addressed, and continues to address, the entire spectrum of identities (at least, race and sex; I'm not sure about religion or LGBTQ) across his Cabinet, Vice President, and other appointees, selecting the most diverse panels in the history of our country. We already know that Biden looking to appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court doesn't mean he isn't interested in finding representation for Native Americans and Asians and Hispanics and other groups, because he's been appointing them to important positions, too. If he gets a second SCJ appointment, I would bet that he looks for another underrepresented minority group (whether or not he publicly says so), because his track record as president has been him representing a very diverse group of individuals.
|
On January 29 2022 01:13 JimmiC wrote:There is tons of data that say that a more diverse group preforms better, so why would you not make that a criteria when talking about hiring for a group.
Is there actually? I've only seen studies conflating correlation with causation so far. I haven't read all that much on the topic, but a common trope I've noticed was e.g. showing that leading companies in this or that field are more diverse. That doesn't prove that their edge is due to their diversity in any way, though.
|
|
|
|
|
On January 29 2022 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think what they would have preferred is: Biden looks at all the candidates on paper, completely color blind and not taking diversity into consideration, and then picking who he believes would be the best SCJ... and then later on, after he picks who he truly thinks is best, he learns that the candidate he chose also happens to be a black woman. That way, the outcome (choosing a black woman) is still retained, but it wasn't an initial, relevant, motivating ("biased") factor in the selection process, and everyone was given a fair shot because no one was preemptively excluded.
I think that's their general position.
That's not the worst approach in my opinion, even if it would be diversity-excluding. However, let's consider the "rubric with URM criteria" approach and how that might play out.
The party should have a reasonable short list of people somewhere who they have as possible candidates for the role. Or maybe they ask people to submit their CVs; doesn't matter but by some means let's say we're down to a short list of people who we believe are baseline worthy of being considered for the role of new SCJ.
We make a rubric based on our criteria for what matters for that role, with weights assigned:
50% general competence as a legal official (this one would definitely be broken down into sub-categories)
15% sympathy towards general Democrat policy goals from a legality standpoint
20% likelihood to be able to pass confirmation
15% meets some desired URM criteria for federal-level legal officials
Then we interview the short list, give them a grade on each criteria, and nominate the person with the highest overall grade.
Feel free to tune those preferences as appropriate or to make up your own. But in general the result would end up being what we say we want: some preference for meeting URM goals, candidates not being a priori excluded by means of reverse discrimination, and if the non-URM candidate is far and away the better choice then they still get the job (if there are no SCJ-qualified black women, we certainly wouldn't want to install an unqualified one).
On January 29 2022 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
And to that, as we've mentioned before, we point out that Biden has already addressed, and continues to address, the entire spectrum of identities (at least, race and sex; I'm not sure about religion or LGBTQ) across his Cabinet, Vice President, and other appointees, selecting the most diverse panels in the history of our country.
There's no particular reason we should specifically say that the next SCJ shall be a black woman, and the next Secretary of State shall be a Muslim Native American. Even if we want blacks, women, Muslims, and Native Americans to all be represented, there's no specific reason that role X should have specific diversity identity Y. Merely that we should make sure that the diversity criteria are generally given weight and that if there are two different URM candidates suited to a role, other qualifications should take priority.
|
On January 29 2022 04:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2022 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think what they would have preferred is: Biden looks at all the candidates on paper, completely color blind and not taking diversity into consideration, and then picking who he believes would be the best SCJ... and then later on, after he picks who he truly thinks is best, he learns that the candidate he chose also happens to be a black woman. That way, the outcome (choosing a black woman) is still retained, but it wasn't an initial, relevant, motivating ("biased") factor in the selection process, and everyone was given a fair shot because no one was preemptively excluded.
I think that's their general position. That's not the worst approach in my opinion, even if it would be diversity-excluding. However, let's consider the "rubric with URM criteria" approach and how that might play out. The party should have a reasonable short list of people somewhere who they have as possible candidates for the role. Or maybe they ask people to submit their CVs; doesn't matter but by some means let's say we're down to a short list of people who we believe are baseline worthy of being considered for the role of new SCJ. We make a rubric based on our criteria for what matters for that role, with weights assigned: 50% general competence as a legal official (this one would definitely be broken down into sub-categories) 15% sympathy towards general Democrat policy goals from a legality standpoint 20% likelihood to be able to pass confirmation 15% meets some desired URM criteria for federal-level legal officials Then we interview the short list, give them a grade on each criteria, and nominate the person with the highest overall grade. Feel free to tune those preferences as appropriate or to make up your own. But in general the result would end up being what we say we want: some preference for meeting URM goals, candidates not being a priori excluded by means of reverse discrimination, and if the non-URM candidate is far and away the better choice then they still get the job (if there are no SCJ-qualified black women, we certainly wouldn't want to install an unqualified one). Show nested quote +On January 29 2022 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
And to that, as we've mentioned before, we point out that Biden has already addressed, and continues to address, the entire spectrum of identities (at least, race and sex; I'm not sure about religion or LGBTQ) across his Cabinet, Vice President, and other appointees, selecting the most diverse panels in the history of our country. There's no particular reason we should specifically say that the next SCJ shall be a black woman, and the next Secretary of State shall be a Muslim Native American. Even if we want blacks, women, Muslims, and Native Americans to all be represented, there's no specific reason that role X should have specific diversity identity Y. Merely that we should make sure that the diversity criteria are generally given weight and that if there are two different URM candidates suited to a role, other qualifications should take priority.
My read on the situation is that Biden is trying to make a statement. Democrats have taken black voters for granted for decades and last election they were key to swing about conservative states. This is him saying, can't do anything else because manchin/sinema and republicans but I'll be giving you a supreme court justice, I hear you.
I would very much doubt that any Hispanic or Asian American went like 'oh, Biden wants to appoint a black woman to the supreme court, what a racist'.
This whole discussion we are having seems to be missing the point my to me.
|
One of the biggest problems I have with "I'm going to pick a Black woman" is that it says almost nothing about whether the person will be an advocate for Black feminist interests. See Reagan saying he'll appoint a woman (and considering a Black woman for the job).
Kamala Harris is a great example of a Black woman that has done incalculable harm to Black women (and men) in the interest of capital. Clarence Thomas is another example of the same problem.
The consistency with which the US has systematically exploited people of various identities in order to exploit the subgroup they "represent" can't be disregarded.
It's a cheap political ploy that flourishes with a shallow understanding of identity.
|
|
|
Another thing to remember is that Biden literally said he would do this on the campaign trail. It is a completely different conversation if he simply announced this when breyer's retirement was announced. If there was this much of a concert about his desire to appoint a black female to the court it is in the republics' best interest to address it then.
I just wish he would pursue his other campaign promises as resolutely.
|
On January 29 2022 04:09 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2022 03:21 maybenexttime wrote:On January 29 2022 01:13 JimmiC wrote:There is tons of data that say that a more diverse group preforms better, so why would you not make that a criteria when talking about hiring for a group. Is there actually? I've only seen studies conflating correlation with causation so far. I haven't read all that much on the topic, but a common trope I've noticed was e.g. showing that leading companies in this or that field are more diverse. That doesn't prove that their edge is due to their diversity in any way, though. This was posted on the other page, and there is a lot more. With my company it is pretty clear, we can look at our performance in certain markets, look at our staff and see correlation, then we can add people of different back grounds and look again and see the change. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-in-science-why-it-is-essential-for-excellence/
Those are opinion pieces, not actual studies. One of the articles did exactly what I was talking and conflated correlation with causation.
|
On January 29 2022 02:41 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2022 02:28 Dan HH wrote:On January 29 2022 01:13 JimmiC wrote:On January 29 2022 01:02 Dan HH wrote:On January 29 2022 00:39 JimmiC wrote:On January 29 2022 00:12 Dan HH wrote:On January 28 2022 23:22 LegalLord wrote:On January 28 2022 23:08 micronesia wrote:
via intentionally selecting demographically diverse candidates There are plenty of other underrepresented groups we could also put on the court, like a Muslim, or atheist, Asian, Native American, etc. Almost sounds like this isn't really about diversity, but about discrimination based on some other form of political gain This is the part where the others lose me. Ethically, excluding people from the hiring process because of their ethnicity/gender/sexuality/religion is virtually the same as firing someone because of their ethnicity/gender/sexuality/religion as far as I'm concerned. I'm okay with Biden having a preference for what underrepresented boxes a candidate should ideally tick, but promising to not even look at anyone that doesn't tick 2 specific boxes before even having a name to advance is utterly wrong. If he said he was only going to pick someone with a 4.0 grade point average in College would that be wrong to exclude all the others that did not? I'm sorry but this is an asinine question, the answer is obviously no based on my first paragraph. Surely you see the difference between telling someone you're firing them because they have the lowest sales vs telling someone you're firing them because they are muslim. I do, but firing and hiring are also difference. Once is based on actual performance and one is based on potential performance. Being a 4.0 student vs a 3.7 student does not make one better at most jobs, I'm not even sure if there is any data to say that there is any correlation at all and yet we are OK with it as criteria. There is tons of data that say that a more diverse group preforms better, so why would you not make that a criteria when talking about hiring for a group. The thing with SCJ is it is a group and putting the 7 best individuals together by any criteria will not necessarily give the best outcomes. It is harder to see when they are hiring just one person because it feels "unfair" but if you want the highest preforming group you want to see what your group has, what it is missing and then add the missing part. We're ok with it as a criteria because you have at least some degree of control over it. And performance numbers can be misleading as well. That's not the issue and neither is the consequentialist approach to diversity/representation. There are two distinct actions here: - actually appointing a black woman - announcing that you are excluding all but black women from consideration All the outcome-based arguments here in favor of Biden's approach only apply to the former, and all the criticisms only apply to the latter. Our positions aren't incompatible. If he had just named an actual person that is a black woman directly we wouldn't be having this conversation and nothing would be lost. Bragging beforehand about discriminating against all other underrepresented groups because they happen to be less politically useful at this time is not a step towards the society we want. I'm sure that if before naming anyone, Trump would have preceded that by announcing that the next SCJ will be a white christian you would have seen this distinction clearly. It is so strange that you and others keep saying the problem is that he announced it. That means you disagree with the criteria. Or you prefer to be lied too. I also think its funny this other unrepresented group thing, yet the people complaining about it are almost exclusively white males. A black woman will likely be seen as progress for other under represented groups and give them hope that they will have a chance in the the future. A Hispanic Justice would be a great addition, hopefully that comes soon. If the SJC had not white Christians, given the US demographics I would think adding one to the group would totally make sense. If it was it was it currently constructed it would be disturbing. And the reality it for both of Trumps appointment it likely was, especially the Christian part but likely the White as well. That he didn't say it aloud just stays true to his character of bull shit. It is also asinine to assume that before the statement was made that they didn't already have a shortlist or even a person picked that met all the other criteria.
You (and DPB) don't have to try and guess something I've made clear in a post you previously replied to
I'm okay with Biden having a preference for what underrepresented boxes a candidate should ideally tick, but promising to not even look at anyone that doesn't tick 2 specific boxes before even having a name to advance is utterly wrong.
As a factor that holds some arbitrary weight: fine
As a thou-shall-not-pass filter: not fine
I think we have different definitions of asinine, that statement was made before primaries as a non-incumbent. It was 100% a "your polling numbers with black people and women could use a boost" statement, there's no other sane reason to lock yourself specifically into black and woman at that point as opposed to just promising better/more diverse representation with his SC appointments. Even if he was thinking of a specific black woman justice at that point, they could have died between then and now and he'd have to procure another black woman no matter what, you realize how absurd this is? It's like something out of an Armando Iannucci show.
|
On January 29 2022 04:38 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2022 04:23 LegalLord wrote:On January 29 2022 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I think what they would have preferred is: Biden looks at all the candidates on paper, completely color blind and not taking diversity into consideration, and then picking who he believes would be the best SCJ... and then later on, after he picks who he truly thinks is best, he learns that the candidate he chose also happens to be a black woman. That way, the outcome (choosing a black woman) is still retained, but it wasn't an initial, relevant, motivating ("biased") factor in the selection process, and everyone was given a fair shot because no one was preemptively excluded.
I think that's their general position. That's not the worst approach in my opinion, even if it would be diversity-excluding. However, let's consider the "rubric with URM criteria" approach and how that might play out. The party should have a reasonable short list of people somewhere who they have as possible candidates for the role. Or maybe they ask people to submit their CVs; doesn't matter but by some means let's say we're down to a short list of people who we believe are baseline worthy of being considered for the role of new SCJ. We make a rubric based on our criteria for what matters for that role, with weights assigned: 50% general competence as a legal official (this one would definitely be broken down into sub-categories) 15% sympathy towards general Democrat policy goals from a legality standpoint 20% likelihood to be able to pass confirmation 15% meets some desired URM criteria for federal-level legal officials Then we interview the short list, give them a grade on each criteria, and nominate the person with the highest overall grade. Feel free to tune those preferences as appropriate or to make up your own. But in general the result would end up being what we say we want: some preference for meeting URM goals, candidates not being a priori excluded by means of reverse discrimination, and if the non-URM candidate is far and away the better choice then they still get the job (if there are no SCJ-qualified black women, we certainly wouldn't want to install an unqualified one). On January 29 2022 03:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
And to that, as we've mentioned before, we point out that Biden has already addressed, and continues to address, the entire spectrum of identities (at least, race and sex; I'm not sure about religion or LGBTQ) across his Cabinet, Vice President, and other appointees, selecting the most diverse panels in the history of our country. There's no particular reason we should specifically say that the next SCJ shall be a black woman, and the next Secretary of State shall be a Muslim Native American. Even if we want blacks, women, Muslims, and Native Americans to all be represented, there's no specific reason that role X should have specific diversity identity Y. Merely that we should make sure that the diversity criteria are generally given weight and that if there are two different URM candidates suited to a role, other qualifications should take priority. My read on the situation is that Biden is trying to make a statement. Democrats have taken black voters for granted for decades and last election they were key to swing about conservative states. This is him saying, can't do anything else because manchin/sinema and republicans but I'll be giving you a supreme court justice, I hear you. I would very much doubt that any Hispanic or Asian American went like 'oh, Biden wants to appoint a black woman to the supreme court, what a racist'. This whole discussion we are having seems to be missing the point my to me.
A cynical man may think that Biden's choice to specifically put "identity X for post Y" or "black woman as SCJ" is either:
1. Completely arbitrary exclusion of other groups based on a general desire for black women applied randomly; or
2. Political horse-trading under the cover of diversity initiatives. E.g. one of Biden's allies to whom he owns a favor (let's say for example Clyburn) has a black niece who is a federal judge / well-regarded attorney who wants to be a SCJ. Or maybe if we want to cover tracks a bit more - said political ally has a nephew who wants to be a CEO of company Y, whereas someone who can make that happen in company Y has a black niece as above. Or use your imagination, but in any ways the a priori desired choice happens to be a black woman who is being chosen not for merit but for quid pro quo.
Are either of these happening? I won't claim to have proof of it. But doing it like Biden did it absolutely leaves the door open to approaches like this and creates a lot of doubt that he's actually interested in building a government out of competent people. And if we don't care about that, then "diversity hire" in its pejorative sense is absolutely the word for the kind of people he's employing.
I offer my weighted grades approach as a means by which to achieve diversity while preserving merit. If diversity without preserving merit is the goal, then the goal doesn't have my support.
EDIT: I would be remiss not to mention "it's for political points with desired group" as a less insidious-sounding version of (2). The rest of the argument is unchanged even with that caveat.
|
On January 29 2022 05:25 Dan HH wrote:
It was 100% a "your polling numbers with black people and women could use a boost" statement, there's no other sane reason to lock yourself specifically into black and woman at that point as opposed to just promising better/more diverse representation with his SC appointments. Even if he was thinking of a specific black woman justice at that point, they could have died between then and now and he'd have to procure another black woman no matter what, you realize how absurd this is? It's like something out of an Armando Iannucci show.
I believe he made that promise during a period of national unrest over high profile murders of black people by the police. In that context, I don't think it is necessarily just a cynical ploy to get votes. In an ideal world we would get comprehensive justice reform through the legislature, and all hiring would be perfect meritocracy, but this is politics and can't be separated from the times.
|
I don't see the big issue with this. There are probably dozens of highly qualified judges or attorneys of any race or gender who are ready to fill a Supreme Court seat. The republicans can say hire or appoint people based on merit rather than skin color all they want, but 90% of republicans in congress are men, and mostly white.
I get the complaints, and if every cabinet member had to be a perfect alignment of the American population I would say that's rather dumb. But this is like NASA making sure Artemis is going to plant the first woman on the Moon. Its ok. Not worth the drama one way or another.
|
United States24782 Posts
I think it's a slippery slope fallacy. If we say it's ok today for Biden to decide from the getgo his SCOTUS justice will be a black female, then we're saying it's okay for all hiring to be performed that way in the future. I wouldn't agree with all hiring being handled like this SCOTUS pick. I'm okay with Biden's method provided there actually are qualified black female judges available from the pool of "candidates," which there are.
|
|
|
On January 29 2022 05:04 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2022 04:09 JimmiC wrote:On January 29 2022 03:21 maybenexttime wrote:On January 29 2022 01:13 JimmiC wrote:There is tons of data that say that a more diverse group preforms better, so why would you not make that a criteria when talking about hiring for a group. Is there actually? I've only seen studies conflating correlation with causation so far. I haven't read all that much on the topic, but a common trope I've noticed was e.g. showing that leading companies in this or that field are more diverse. That doesn't prove that their edge is due to their diversity in any way, though. This was posted on the other page, and there is a lot more. With my company it is pretty clear, we can look at our performance in certain markets, look at our staff and see correlation, then we can add people of different back grounds and look again and see the change. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/diversity-in-science-why-it-is-essential-for-excellence/ Those are opinion pieces, not actual studies. One of the articles did exactly what I was talking and conflated correlation with causation.
Okay, this seems like a decent starting point and has some references to more empirical papers if you're really into it:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053482209000795?casa_token=nyUBpOuzMN0AAAAA:b-8g40hXY5q1fRTF4hQLvgGJdvyFQVXsLzVCwlV64IphICw_rkEVRxqvXUEWI8cMW7nXaJML0A
|
|
|
On January 29 2022 06:31 micronesia wrote:
I think it's a slippery slope fallacy. If we say it's ok today for Biden to decide from the getgo his SCOTUS justice will be a black female, then we're saying it's okay for all hiring to be performed that way in the future. I wouldn't agree with all hiring being handled like this SCOTUS pick. I'm okay with Biden's method provided there actually are qualified black female judges available from the pool of "candidates," which there are.
I think it's worse than just a slippery slope (non-fallacy). The very act of playing it this way already calls into question the merits of his eventual choice and rightfully so provides ammunition to any party who would like to criticize this choice. If they are able to find fault with this nominee - even a sort of "I made a mistake or two in a decades-long career" set of otherwise fully understandable faults - it will have outsized impact since there is reason to question if they were nominated on merit. When there's good a priori reason to question Biden's objectivity due to a poorly conceived approach to framing these picks, trust is going to be a hard thing to win back.
Your post in particular doesn't do it, but I find it disappointing that the "well how else could you do it if not like this?" retorts keep coming up in this thread. Several people have laid out exactly how else you might do it and evidently it gets ignored.
|
On January 29 2022 06:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2022 06:31 micronesia wrote:
I think it's a slippery slope fallacy. If we say it's ok today for Biden to decide from the getgo his SCOTUS justice will be a black female, then we're saying it's okay for all hiring to be performed that way in the future. I wouldn't agree with all hiring being handled like this SCOTUS pick. I'm okay with Biden's method provided there actually are qualified black female judges available from the pool of "candidates," which there are. I think it's worse than just a slippery slope (non-fallacy). The very act of playing it this way already calls into question the merits of his eventual choice and rightfully so provides ammunition to any party who would like to criticize this choice. If they are able to find fault with this nominee - even a sort of "I made a mistake or two in a decades-long career" set of otherwise fully understandable faults - it will have outsized impact since there is reason to question if they were nominated on merit. When there's good a priori reason to question Biden's objectivity due to a poorly conceived approach to framing these picks, trust is going to be a hard thing to win back. Your post in particular doesn't do it, but I find it disappointing that the "well how else could you do it if not like this?" retorts keep coming up in this thread. Several people have laid out exactly how else you might do it and evidently it gets ignored. Well fortunately then that we had the Republicans make a complete sham of the SC justice nomination by pushing through Kavenaugh, going as far as to have a sham FBI 'investigation'.
I'm pretty confident to blindly say that whoever Biden picks will be more qualified then that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
