|
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 18:17 Broetchenholer wrote:
Frankly, your argument is ridiculous. Every administration has so far put out a list of "qualifications" they want in their pick so far, the time you yelled was not when that criteria was needs to believe in God, that abortion is a sin, and that a sitting president is actually a king. Nobody back then said, we are excluding the qualified progressives, that's wrong.
I like this point. There is significant preemptive exclusion with every SCJ pick, which makes it seem very... odd... that the mention of "Black" or "woman" is what gets some people up in arms and suddenly taking issue with the process.
|
Norway28796 Posts
Eh, 'must have x opinion on issue x' is pretty distinctly different from what your identity in terms of whether it's fair to exclude someone based on that.
|
On January 29 2022 21:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Eh, 'must have x opinion on issue x' is pretty distinctly different from what your identity in terms of whether it's fair to exclude someone based on that.
Why?
Why is "must be Christian" a better criterion than "must be black"?
In a vacuum they both seem absurd. In the context of choosing a SC judge, they seem like equally reasonable ways of narrowing down a large pool of candidates to ones that you believe will bring the perspective you wish to add to the court when deciding cases.
|
|
|
On January 29 2022 22:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2022 21:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Eh, 'must have x opinion on issue x' is pretty distinctly different from what your identity in terms of whether it's fair to exclude someone based on that. Why? Why is "must be Christian" a better criterion than "must be black"? In a vacuum they both seem absurd. In the context of choosing a SC judge, they seem like equally reasonable ways of narrowing down a large pool of candidates to ones that you believe will bring the perspective you wish to add to the court when deciding cases.
I mean, the implications of wanting a christian judge in a country that is supposed to have separation of Church and State seems more nefarious than wanting a black judge
|
Without further qualifiers, whether a hypothetical all-women government cabinet would better represent my views and positions than an all-male one is a 50/50 coin toss.
As an atheist in an overwhelmingly religious country, the only atheist president (or rather the only one who refused to pretend to be religious) we've had in my lifetime was also the one I would rank as by far the worst since the revolution.
Identity-based representation is important as a symbol to historically underrepresented groups and it can also enhance the range of perspectives of the group, but is not the same as representation in general. That's part of why I don't find the "let's get one of those, then let's get one of those, then let's get one of those" framing acceptable, it's reductionist. A progressive black woman judge could have a lot in common with a progressive asian man and radical differences of opinion with another progressive black woman.
E: It also gives me a very "binders full of women" vibe. That if the first choice doesn't pan out for whatever reason, you can just move on to the next black woman and it's the same. Like no one that isn't a black woman could have possibly been closer overall to the first choice.
|
Norway28796 Posts
On January 29 2022 22:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2022 21:54 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Eh, 'must have x opinion on issue x' is pretty distinctly different from what your identity in terms of whether it's fair to exclude someone based on that. Why? Why is "must be Christian" a better criterion than "must be black"? In a vacuum they both seem absurd. In the context of choosing a SC judge, they seem like equally reasonable ways of narrowing down a large pool of candidates to ones that you believe will bring the perspective you wish to add to the court when deciding cases.
Well I think 'be a Christian' is an absurd requirement - which is an existing right-wing equivalent of 'must be a black woman'. That there already exists an absurd requirement isn't really a reason to add more absurd requirements. (I don't even think 'must be a black woman' is 'absurd' tbh, I just think it's 'not ideal'.) Meanwhile, I think 'is pro roe v wade' or 'opposed to roe v wade' are imo perfectly rational requirements to base your nomination around (even if I myself am more positive towards 'a Christian' than someone who 'is opposed to roe v wade')
A key difference between 'position on issue x' and gender, sexuality and ethnicity is that one can change as you learn more about the issue while the other three really don't. (Yes, I do know that gender and sexuality are somewhat fluid in some people, but it's really not comparable.  )
Another is that your identity, as GH pointed out, does by no means showcase your position on various issues. From my perspective, Clarence Thomas is arguably the worst judge on the SC - even though he ticks off half the stated identity requirements. ACB ticks off the other half without being much better. Retiring Breyer on his end is as old white man as it gets, but he's still top 3 right now.
I'm not even against various types of quota schemes tbh, I think they can be an essential part of forcing change upon society. We've had various rules in Norway for what % of a board or government must be women, for example, and I think that has generally yielded positive results. However, the SC only has 9 positions. African Americans make up something like 14% of the population of the US, but they'll have 22% representation. An Asian woman would be just as necessary if 'reflecting the diversity of the population' is the goal.
In practice, I don't think this will be a big deal. I'm sure there's multiple black women who will be perfectly capable justices. But the principle slightly rubs me the wrong way - much the same way having a religious or non-religious requirement would (or does).
|
how much faster and how much further do you think womens rights and health care (in the US, at least) would have advanced if someone thought maybe to add just one woman’s voice to congress before 1920?
and here we are over 100 years later without ever having had a black woman as a justice. and only two black men in history. and it worries you that it’s a criteria? it should worry you instead that the experience and perspective and potentially even needs have been wholly unheard in the highest court in the country.
the first woman was only finally elected in our lifetime, and the first black man even later. we are worse for our lack of diversity in any capacity and this will be an excellent change for the better.
|
Norway28796 Posts
Would AOC, Condoleezza Rice or Kamala Harris do a better job championing the rights of black women, in general? It's not like I'm opposed to representation of black women. I just don't think they're automatically the ones who will do the best job representing black people. (Again, do the black posters here feel particularly represented by Clarence Thomas?)
I also don't object to landing on a black woman. What I object to is the automatic disqualification of every non black-woman. Doesn't really matter if 'but x has discriminated against x in a similar fashion before'. If I were a white guy who happened to a) have spent every breathing minute of my adult working life fighting for the rights of black people and b) I happened to be a brilliant legal scholar eligible for the position, I think it'd be dumb to disqualify me because of my ethnicity and gender. Disqualification based on ethnicity and gender is exactly what we are fighting against and that having happened so much in the past (and present) is why representation of black women is considered a goal. However, utilizing the same tactic invokes a slight 'bombing for peace' vibe with me.
|
On January 29 2022 23:54 brian wrote:
how much faster and how much further do you think womens rights and health care (in the US, at least) would have advanced if someone thought maybe to add just one woman’s voice to congress before 1920?
Turns out that this one isn’t a counterfactual.
Although I still consider the GH point here: if said appointee is not a good advocate for the rights of the minority group, then they would do more harm than good. Checking off the identity box isn’t a guarantee of good outcomes. And perhaps elected by popular vote vs hired to fill a quota is an important difference too.
|
you may have a point that not all black women are the best for representing black women. but i am confident it is the case that the best person to represent black women is a black woman, absolutely. i think it is arrogant to think otherwise to be honest.
do you think there is a man out there that is the bestperson to represent a woman?
On January 30 2022 00:17 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2022 23:54 brian wrote:
how much faster and how much further do you think womens rights and health care (in the US, at least) would have advanced if someone thought maybe to add just one woman’s voice to congress before 1920?
Turns out that this one isn’t a counterfactual.Although I still consider the GH point here: if said appointee is not a good advocate for the rights of the minority group, then they would do more harm than good. Checking off the identity box isn’t a guarantee of good outcomes. And perhaps elected by popular vote vs hired to fill a quota is an important difference too.
i’m not sure what i’m meant to understand from your link, and i think your latter point is addressed in this post above.
|
Do you think Bernie Sanders or Sarah Palin would make for a better advocate for women’s rights? Which identity boxes do these two individuals check off?
|
On January 30 2022 00:18 brian wrote:
i’m not sure what i’m meant to understand from your link
Well sure, I can spell it out...
how much faster and how much further do you think womens rights and health care (in the US, at least) would have advanced if someone thought maybe to add just one woman’s voice to congress before 1920?
Jeannette Pickering Rankin (June 11, 1880 – May 18, 1973) was an American politician and women's rights advocate, and the first woman to hold federal office in the United States. She was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican from Montana in 1916
|
i think, like i just said, certainly not ALL WOMEN are best poised to represent women. but the best advocate is certainly a woman.
so no, i wouldn’t pick palin over sanders. but i think it is arrogant to think sanders would be the best overall pick to represent women.
On January 30 2022 00:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2022 00:18 brian wrote:
i’m not sure what i’m meant to understand from your link Well sure, I can spell it out... Show nested quote +how much faster and how much further do you think womens rights and health care (in the US, at least) would have advanced if someone thought maybe to add just one woman’s voice to congress before 1920? Show nested quote +Jeannette Pickering Rankin (June 11, 1880 – May 18, 1973) was an American politician and women's rights advocate, and the first woman to hold federal office in the United States. She was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican from Montana in 1916
my sincerest apologies on shorting you three years? take note that the first woman to ever be elected to federal office proposed the 19th amendment. definitely helps to have clear evidence that diversity breeds progress. she is the embodiment of my point. thank you.
|
On January 30 2022 00:23 brian wrote:
i think, like i just said, certainly not ALL WOMEN are best poised to represent women. but the best advocate is certainly a woman.
so no, i wouldn’t pick palin over sanders. but i think it is arrogant to think sanders would be the best overall pick to represent women.
So now having acknowledged that person of identity X might not necessarily be the best person to represent identity X overall, might you be willing to acknowledge that, as several others have noted, depending on the candidate pool that might not be a good thing to have as an immediate exclusionary principle?
On January 30 2022 00:23 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On January 30 2022 00:23 LegalLord wrote:On January 30 2022 00:18 brian wrote:
i’m not sure what i’m meant to understand from your link Well sure, I can spell it out... how much faster and how much further do you think womens rights and health care (in the US, at least) would have advanced if someone thought maybe to add just one woman’s voice to congress before 1920? Jeannette Pickering Rankin (June 11, 1880 – May 18, 1973) was an American politician and women's rights advocate, and the first woman to hold federal office in the United States. She was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives as a Republican from Montana in 1916 my sincerest apologies on shorting you three years? take note that the first woman to ever be elected to federal office proposed the 19th amendment. i appreciate the contribution to my point.
You should be apologizing for the reading comprehension or lack thereof - this is literally the first line of the linked article. And as your edit acknowledges, "being off by three years" when those three years are pivotal ones to making change is a pretty big deal. It's like saying "there were no blacks in Congress before 1867" and if there were one in 1864 who helped drive for the end of slavery.
The reading comprehension is actually the major point here, in that "we don't need a black woman on the SC" is not what has been argued by anyone so far. That is just a straw man, and all those so far arguing against the Biden a priori pick acknowledge at least some merit in a diversity preference, even if not an immediate exclusion. To be fair you're not the only one making this mistake by a long shot, but "the point is on the first line" is pretty blatant.
|
sorry, the first woman elected to office proposing the 19th amendment expanding the voting rights of the nation doesn’t show that adding diversity is critical to progress?
your tone and wrongness is off putting. were they pivotal years because she literally incited the change to expand voting rights? by adding a woman’s voice to congress she changed the shape of the nation?
and i should apologize? because i was wrong by three years, you think that had undermined my point so much as to apologize? lol. have a good one LL.
|
On January 30 2022 00:40 brian wrote:
and i should apologize?
Damn straight you should. And it should be one of those non-sarcastic apologies, and it should be for the reasons that I had listed there.
On January 30 2022 00:40 brian wrote:
your tone and wrongness is off putting.
I'm really not sure what kind of tone you could expect when you literally don't read what someone writes. There's not a whole lot of nice ways to put "you literally didn't read what I wrote and just assumed."
I will respond to the rest of this with quotes from my previous posts:
Point
On January 30 2022 00:40 brian wrote:
because i was wrong by three years, you think that had undermined my point so much as to apologize? lol.
Response
On January 30 2022 00:37 LegalLord wrote:
And as your edit acknowledges, "being off by three years" when those three years are pivotal ones to making change is a pretty big deal. It's like saying "there were no blacks in Congress before 1867" and if there were one in 1864 who helped drive for the end of slavery.
Point
On January 30 2022 00:40 brian wrote:
sorry, the first woman elected to office proposing the 19th amendment expanding the voting rights of the nation doesn’t show that adding diversity is critical to progress?
were they pivotal years because she literally incited the change to expand voting rights? by adding a woman’s voice to congress she changed the shape of the nation?
Response
On January 30 2022 00:17 LegalLord wrote:
Although I still consider the GH point here: if said appointee is not a good advocate for the rights of the minority group, then they would do more harm than good. Checking off the identity box isn’t a guarantee of good outcomes. And perhaps elected by popular vote vs hired to fill a quota is an important difference too.
On January 30 2022 00:37 LegalLord wrote:
all those so far arguing against the Biden a priori pick acknowledge at least some merit in a diversity preference, even if not an immediate exclusion.
|
so to recap, i said ‘do you think womens rights would have advanced faster if we added a woman prior to 1920?’
response:’actually she took office in 1917 and did exactly that!’
and you think i’m wrong? did adding the first woman to congress advance the rights of women? and do you think it would’ve happened faster if we decided to add that voice sooner?
this is a trip. you don’t see what’s happened here? you’ve made my case for me but are embarrassing us both because i was off by three years. i won’t be apologizing but i’ll thank you again, i appreciate the assist. sincerely, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
