US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3466

On January 30 2022 18:44 justanothertownie wrote:

If that is what you read out of mainis post then you are so blinded by your mission that your reading comprehension got lost along the way. Entirely.

The difference between the positions is obviously that in his opinion merit should be the most important/only criterion. Noone is saying reducing the pool of candidates to black women means the resulting choice is unqualified. But in general, if you look for the person who is the most qualified you cannot impose such restrictions (equally as idiotic as religious restrictions or anything else the Republicans might do). You are just giving the anti-woke crowd valuable ammunition by uttering such a condition. Just nominate her if you think she is the best option and while many people might still complain about the choice at least they cannot say "he is openly being racist against everyone not black".

Just do it like LL said and make it a part of the desired qualities if you think the life experience is valuable. But do not exclude people because of their race in your supposed fight against racism...

On January 30 2022 14:51 NewSunshine wrote:
Who's saying that being a black woman is a requirement? Biden just said that his next appointee will be one, because he probably has someone in mind already. That's it. We followed that with a discussion about what that can mean. Representation may not matter to you, it doesn't matter much to me because I'm over-represented as is, but it does matter to some folks. All you're doing is pointing out why being part of a demographic doesn't necessarily mean you represent it in the best way, which nobody argued with? But also it's kind of obnoxious and presumptuous to keep dredging up the idea that people outside that demographic are somehow inclined to represent them better, on average.

Also, can we please stop butting in with this stupid argument that merit isn't entering the picture because we're just trying to "virtue signal". Just. Stop. Please. Nobody said that, it's not a thing, and it's exhausting to keep reading it, let alone responding to it.

On January 30 2022 19:33 EnDeR_ wrote:


The anti-woke crowd will go bananas either way if it's not an old white dude. Anyone who thinks that choosing a back woman for SCOTUS is compromising quality for diversity is never going to be on board, regardless of how the selection process was done.

On January 30 2022 20:10 justanothertownie wrote:

The world is not as black and white as you make it out to be. Sure, there are certainly more than enough irredeemable and racist people. But the goal of politics should be to convince the people in between who do not have a problem with a female black judge but care about a merit based appointment (my personal guess would be there are a lot more of those anyways). And those you are alienating with this behavior.

Edit: To reiterate: any arbitrary condition to be an eligible candidate such as being a black person or a women or a christian or a white male is directly opposed to a process based on merit. These things can not be combined.

On January 30 2022 20:10 justanothertownie wrote:

The world is not as black and white as you make it out to be. Sure, there are certainly more than enough irredeemable and racist people. But the goal of politics should be to convince the people in between who do not have a problem with a female black judge but care about a merit based appointment (my personal guess would be there are a lot more of those anyways). And those you are alienating with this behavior.

Edit: To reiterate: any arbitrary condition to be an eligible candidate such as being a black person or a women or a christian or a white male is directly opposed to a process based on merit. These things can not be combined.

On January 30 2022 21:08 EnDeR_ wrote:


The thing is, and this is what's clearly not getting through, that 'merit-based' is a fairly meaningless term when you're talking about SCOTUS picks. Was the selection of Scalia back in the day based on merit or because he was the most vocally socially conservative option? Was the rejection of Garland by a GOP-dominated senate because the guy didn't merit the post or because he would vote against anything that threatened roe v wade? Was the selection of Brett Kavanaugh based on how much he merited the post or because he would vote to make sure that Trump gets away with stuff? Were Amy Coney Barret or Gorsuch selected based on merit or because they would certainly work to undermine roe v wade?

This conversation is a bit surreal.

On January 30 2022 21:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


When you brought up the need for merit, EnDeR_ was merely pointing out that it's awfully convenient that we suddenly get preemptively worried about the SCJ's merit as soon as we hear she's going to be a Black woman, especially after Biden made it extremely clear that merit was vital for his decision. The reasons people usually view SCJs favorably/unfavorably are based on their records or deeds/misdeeds, and I didn't hear nearly as much focus on AS or BK or NG being white men the second they were appointed. Maybe it's because being a white man is more representative of the conservative base or conservatives care less about minorities, whereas now we're talking about a liberal SCJ, but it's still regressive and false to suggest that diversity necessarily precludes merit, as has already been discussed.

On January 30 2022 22:51 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


But it was never "instead of"; it was always "and", and the repeated assertion that he can't possibly be caring about qualifications if he also cares about inclusion is the problem we're having. He explicitly said he cares about choosing a top-tier, qualified candidate who, additionally, is a Black woman, and so the only way to get from that full context to "but would the candidate really be qualified if they're going to be a Black woman" is to question whether or not any Black women exist in the pool of qualified candidates. And we know that there are plenty of qualified Black women (that's three criteria, not two), such as these 6: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/01/27/supreme-court-breyer-replacement-black-candidates/

When you have dozens, if not hundreds, of qualified candidates that have top-tier "merit", you need to find ways to break the tie. One of the ways he's choosing to whittle down the pool of potential SCJ picks is by keeping his campaign promise of increasing representation, which he's done in his Cabinet and he's doing here. Another factor that presidents may consider, for example, is the ages or health of the short-list of qualified candidates (perhaps considering a slightly younger or healthier candidate who still has all the same credentials, since they'll likely have a longer tenure on the Supreme Court), or any number of other considerations. At some point, when you have several amazing resumes but only one open position, you need to find a way to pick one.

On January 30 2022 23:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


You're not posting in good faith. You can't possibly be.

Edit: I think a lot of people aren't budging on this issue or are talking past each other, including myself, so I'm going to stop discussing this topic before I get too frustrated

On January 30 2022 22:57 justanothertownie wrote:

Sure, and most people would agree the choice should be the person who you think is the most qualified after vetting every applicant. Instead of ruling out the majority of candidates from the get go because you decided that skin color supersedes everything else.

On January 30 2022 23:29 JimmiC wrote:


This was never stated and is an assumption made when Biden stated that the person WILL be a Black Women. If he had said NEEDS to be, the assumption would make more sense. The was not an off the cuff statement but well prepared, so the words matter.

That they eliminated all the other candiates is at best a unconious bias driven assumption and at worst a syrawman to hide racism. To be clear the bias could be against Democrats, the "left", or something else I can not think of.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki outlined President Biden’s process for finding a replacement for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, noting that the President has been reviewing prospective nominee bios “since last year” in preparation for a Supreme Court opening.

“Ron Klain and Dana Remus have been involved in consulting with the President, preparing bios for him, and that’s something that he’s looked at since last year,” she said.

In White House remarks today, Biden committed to nominating the nation's first Black female Supreme Court justice and said he expects to choose a nominee before the end of February.

On January 30 2022 23:50 Sermokala wrote:
People again are greatly missing the framing of this entire thing. Biden ran on a promise that the next court pick SHOULD be a black woman because he was campaigning and made that desire a part of his campaign.

Now that he's been elected it has become the mandate for his administration to follow through on that implied desire from the electorate. This is how republics work in a representative democracy.

Trying to fight racism isn't racism. I don't know how people can get it in their heads that the only way to fight racism is to just keep selecting based on racist systems that exist today instead of trying to change those systems by taking into the inherent existing racism into account.

The idea that biden had his pick two years ago is also insane considering the need to have picks that were confirmed to their federal seat less than a year from your supreme court pick.


There is no way you belive that everyone agrees on the same set of qualifications for every applicant. This is arguing in bad faith by trying to impy that everyone agrees with you specificaly when you know that the majority does not.

On January 31 2022 00:07 justanothertownie wrote:

No, the point is that Biden isn't even pretending to choose based on qualification. Of course what he or I or anyone else thinks will be different. But the one deciding should try to make the best choice. And reducing the candidate pool prior to vetting and choosing based on merit are not compatible with each other.

Is the one he will propose the best choice? Then shut up and just nominate her without trying to be praised for nominating a black person thereby undermining her. Is it purely a political favor for some reason? A sad state of affairs but same procedure.