|
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 |
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On February 02 2022 03:27 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
So this argument is kind of moot if no-one is going to explain exactly what the attributes are that would make 'objectively the best' SC judge.
Clearly lots of people seem to think that the most important thing in the search for objectively the best judge - which can I remind everyone again only seems to have started since the idea of a black woman being given the job came up - is that the pool isn't limited.
But exactly what attributes are required?
Experience? Are the most experienced judges the best candidates?
Political neutrality? Is this now suddenly a requirement?
Is there even some reason that being 'the best person for the job' is suddenly now more important than political considerations? Why did this only happen when a black woman might get the job? The thing is that it does not matter at all which attributes you define. Limiting your pool of candidates before checking will always lead to the possibility of leaving out the "best" candidate.
But why is finding the best candidate suddenly a priority now?
It never was before. All the dems seemed to really object to was having someone who was accused of serious crimes.
When Amy Coney Barrett got the job, I remember the only objections being procedural, rather than the fact that the pool was clearly limited by the candidates' opinion on abortion.
|
It's a good thing the best candidate definitly isn't an old white male then
|
On February 02 2022 03:34 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 03:27 justanothertownie wrote:On February 02 2022 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
So this argument is kind of moot if no-one is going to explain exactly what the attributes are that would make 'objectively the best' SC judge.
Clearly lots of people seem to think that the most important thing in the search for objectively the best judge - which can I remind everyone again only seems to have started since the idea of a black woman being given the job came up - is that the pool isn't limited.
But exactly what attributes are required?
Experience? Are the most experienced judges the best candidates?
Political neutrality? Is this now suddenly a requirement?
Is there even some reason that being 'the best person for the job' is suddenly now more important than political considerations? Why did this only happen when a black woman might get the job? The thing is that it does not matter at all which attributes you define. Limiting your pool of candidates before checking will always lead to the possibility of leaving out the "best" candidate. But why is finding the best candidate suddenly a priority now? It never was before. All the dems seemed to really object to was having someone who was accused of serious crimes. When Amy Coney Barrett got the job, I remember the only objections being procedural, rather than the fact that the pool was clearly limited by the candidates' opinion on abortion.
Let's just say finding the best candidate for a position this important which is also held for life to me seems like a logical thing to at least try.
But I guess I just do not understand the US and its people.
|
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On February 02 2022 03:39 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 03:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 02 2022 03:27 justanothertownie wrote:On February 02 2022 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
So this argument is kind of moot if no-one is going to explain exactly what the attributes are that would make 'objectively the best' SC judge.
Clearly lots of people seem to think that the most important thing in the search for objectively the best judge - which can I remind everyone again only seems to have started since the idea of a black woman being given the job came up - is that the pool isn't limited.
But exactly what attributes are required?
Experience? Are the most experienced judges the best candidates?
Political neutrality? Is this now suddenly a requirement?
Is there even some reason that being 'the best person for the job' is suddenly now more important than political considerations? Why did this only happen when a black woman might get the job? The thing is that it does not matter at all which attributes you define. Limiting your pool of candidates before checking will always lead to the possibility of leaving out the "best" candidate. But why is finding the best candidate suddenly a priority now? It never was before. All the dems seemed to really object to was having someone who was accused of serious crimes. When Amy Coney Barrett got the job, I remember the only objections being procedural, rather than the fact that the pool was clearly limited by the candidates' opinion on abortion. Let's just say finding the best candidate for a position this important which is also held for life to me seems like a logical thing to at least try. The pool will always be limited by whatever is politically expedient at the time. But I guess I just do not understand the US and its people.
I agree in theory, but it just doesn't work like that.
If dems go for someone who is objectively the best candidate, regardless of politics, and they continue to do that every time, pretty soon as republicans keep nominating right wing judges with right wing opinions on social issues, the law will bend to the right and it will have real negative effects on people. Its a game that has to be played, and yeah, its stupid, but there's no real way around it.
The pool will always be limited by political considerations.
|
On February 02 2022 03:27 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
So this argument is kind of moot if no-one is going to explain exactly what the attributes are that would make 'objectively the best' SC judge.
Clearly lots of people seem to think that the most important thing in the search for objectively the best judge - which can I remind everyone again only seems to have started since the idea of a black woman being given the job came up - is that the pool isn't limited.
But exactly what attributes are required?
Experience? Are the most experienced judges the best candidates?
Political neutrality? Is this now suddenly a requirement?
Is there even some reason that being 'the best person for the job' is suddenly now more important than political considerations? Why did this only happen when a black woman might get the job? The thing is that it does not matter at all which attributes you define. Limiting your pool of candidates before checking will always lead to the possibility of leaving out the "best" candidate.
what if diversity is part of your "objective" measure for a good supreme court? And therefore " increasing diversity" would be part of your objective criteria for a candidate.
Given that right now the court is mostly white men, using "black woman" as a heuristic to narrow down the search from roughly 300m to "only" 25m people, seems like a fantastic start!
|
On February 02 2022 03:39 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 03:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 02 2022 03:27 justanothertownie wrote:On February 02 2022 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
So this argument is kind of moot if no-one is going to explain exactly what the attributes are that would make 'objectively the best' SC judge.
Clearly lots of people seem to think that the most important thing in the search for objectively the best judge - which can I remind everyone again only seems to have started since the idea of a black woman being given the job came up - is that the pool isn't limited.
But exactly what attributes are required?
Experience? Are the most experienced judges the best candidates?
Political neutrality? Is this now suddenly a requirement?
Is there even some reason that being 'the best person for the job' is suddenly now more important than political considerations? Why did this only happen when a black woman might get the job? The thing is that it does not matter at all which attributes you define. Limiting your pool of candidates before checking will always lead to the possibility of leaving out the "best" candidate. But why is finding the best candidate suddenly a priority now? It never was before. All the dems seemed to really object to was having someone who was accused of serious crimes. When Amy Coney Barrett got the job, I remember the only objections being procedural, rather than the fact that the pool was clearly limited by the candidates' opinion on abortion. Let's just say finding the best candidate for a position this important which is also held for life to me seems like a logical thing to at least try. But I guess I just do not understand the US and its people.
I think the mistake you are making is how you are framing/defining best. In the case of law/justice, there is clearly a threshold for a candidate having a good enough resume. But such a large number of people check that box that we are able to be more ambitious by adding different perspectives through which we would assume a more pure form of justice can be found. There exists no single person who can be an absolute/true form of justice, encapsulating all forms of experience and perspective/empathy. The only way to do that is through multiple people and to make sure those people have a range of experiences. That is why having a black woman is not only not a limiter but a benefit.
I think your main mistake is assuming there is a material benefit to a judge having "more" experience/prestige. The truth is that a diverse court is better than a court where we just look at who has the most experience and then appoint those people. A group is improved by a diverse set of experiences and belief systems.
|
On February 02 2022 03:45 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 03:27 justanothertownie wrote:On February 02 2022 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
So this argument is kind of moot if no-one is going to explain exactly what the attributes are that would make 'objectively the best' SC judge.
Clearly lots of people seem to think that the most important thing in the search for objectively the best judge - which can I remind everyone again only seems to have started since the idea of a black woman being given the job came up - is that the pool isn't limited.
But exactly what attributes are required?
Experience? Are the most experienced judges the best candidates?
Political neutrality? Is this now suddenly a requirement?
Is there even some reason that being 'the best person for the job' is suddenly now more important than political considerations? Why did this only happen when a black woman might get the job? The thing is that it does not matter at all which attributes you define. Limiting your pool of candidates before checking will always lead to the possibility of leaving out the "best" candidate. what if diversity is part of your "objective" measure for a good supreme court? And therefore " increasing diversity" would be part of your objective criteria for a candidate. Given that right now the court is mostly white men, using "black woman" as a heuristic to narrow down the search from roughly 300m to "only" 25m people, seems like a fantastic start!
That makes sense if you define being a black woman as essential in order to be the best candidate. Which is where we would start to disagree since I think that skin color and gender are most likely not THAT important. But we had this discussion already. This is going in circles.
|
On February 02 2022 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
So this argument is kind of moot if no-one is going to explain exactly what the attributes are that would make 'objectively the best' SC judge.
Clearly lots of people seem to think that the most important thing in the search for objectively the best judge - which can I remind everyone again only seems to have started since the idea of a black woman being given the job came up - is that the pool isn't limited.
But exactly what attributes are required?
Experience? Are the most experienced judges the best candidates?
Political neutrality? Is this now suddenly a requirement?
Is there even some reason that being 'the best person for the job' is suddenly now more important than political considerations? Why did this only happen when a black woman might get the job?
I certainly laid out my own crude criteria.
I don't suppose the existence of an imminent SCJ appointment might be an alternative reason for this whole discussion to come up. Hell, the problematic comment came up in early 2020; it only drew a minor amount of attention then because it wasn't relevant yet. Maybe the fact that Breyer said that he's retiring might have something to do with why people suddenly care about a comment that was seen back then as questionable but not yet relevant?
|
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On February 02 2022 03:27 justanothertownie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
So this argument is kind of moot if no-one is going to explain exactly what the attributes are that would make 'objectively the best' SC judge.
Clearly lots of people seem to think that the most important thing in the search for objectively the best judge - which can I remind everyone again only seems to have started since the idea of a black woman being given the job came up - is that the pool isn't limited.
But exactly what attributes are required?
Experience? Are the most experienced judges the best candidates?
Political neutrality? Is this now suddenly a requirement?
Is there even some reason that being 'the best person for the job' is suddenly now more important than political considerations? Why did this only happen when a black woman might get the job? The thing is that it does not matter at all which attributes you define. Limiting your pool of candidates before checking will always lead to the possibility of leaving out the "best" candidate.
If a discussion is being had on x candidate not being the ‘best candidate’ or whatever, it’s pretty important to qualify what the best candidate hypothetically enshrines.
I don’t think the Supreme Court is particularly unique in having a recruitment from a pool of good enough/meet the qualification bar candidates that are then narrowed down via other factors that fall into soft skills, or other considerations for the job.
Be that demographic/representation concerns, historic positions on rulings like Roe vs Wade or whatever. Plus stuff we’re not privy to that’s more behind the scenes. Judge x may be a good judge but not play well with others behind the scenes, whereas another ‘less qualified’ candidate may be a pleasure to work with.
I’d wager most hiring doesn’t actually take on board the absolute best candidate from their pool, there are too many unknowns as well as biases coming into play.
|
Northern Ireland27478 Posts
On February 02 2022 03:57 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 03:39 justanothertownie wrote:On February 02 2022 03:34 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 02 2022 03:27 justanothertownie wrote:On February 02 2022 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
So this argument is kind of moot if no-one is going to explain exactly what the attributes are that would make 'objectively the best' SC judge.
Clearly lots of people seem to think that the most important thing in the search for objectively the best judge - which can I remind everyone again only seems to have started since the idea of a black woman being given the job came up - is that the pool isn't limited.
But exactly what attributes are required?
Experience? Are the most experienced judges the best candidates?
Political neutrality? Is this now suddenly a requirement?
Is there even some reason that being 'the best person for the job' is suddenly now more important than political considerations? Why did this only happen when a black woman might get the job? The thing is that it does not matter at all which attributes you define. Limiting your pool of candidates before checking will always lead to the possibility of leaving out the "best" candidate. But why is finding the best candidate suddenly a priority now? It never was before. All the dems seemed to really object to was having someone who was accused of serious crimes. When Amy Coney Barrett got the job, I remember the only objections being procedural, rather than the fact that the pool was clearly limited by the candidates' opinion on abortion. Let's just say finding the best candidate for a position this important which is also held for life to me seems like a logical thing to at least try. But I guess I just do not understand the US and its people. I think the mistake you are making is how you are framing/defining best. In the case of law/justice, there is clearly a threshold for a candidate having a good enough resume. But such a large number of people check that box that we are able to be more ambitious by adding different perspectives through which we would assume a more pure form of justice can be found. There exists no single person who can be an absolute/true form of justice, encapsulating all forms of experience and perspective/empathy. The only way to do that is through multiple people and to make sure those people have a range of experiences. That is why having a black woman is not only not a limiter but a benefit. I think your main mistake is assuming there is a material benefit to a judge having "more" experience/prestige. The truth is that a diverse court is better than a court where we just look at who has the most experience and then appoint those people. A group is improved by a diverse set of experiences and belief systems.
Judge Dredd would like a word…
|
United Kingdom10026 Posts
On February 02 2022 04:07 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
So this argument is kind of moot if no-one is going to explain exactly what the attributes are that would make 'objectively the best' SC judge.
Clearly lots of people seem to think that the most important thing in the search for objectively the best judge - which can I remind everyone again only seems to have started since the idea of a black woman being given the job came up - is that the pool isn't limited.
But exactly what attributes are required?
Experience? Are the most experienced judges the best candidates?
Political neutrality? Is this now suddenly a requirement?
Is there even some reason that being 'the best person for the job' is suddenly now more important than political considerations? Why did this only happen when a black woman might get the job? I certainly laid out my own crude criteria. I don't suppose the existence of an imminent SCJ appointment might be an alternative reason for this whole discussion to come up. Hell, the problematic comment came up in early 2020; it only drew a minor amount of attention then because it wasn't relevant yet. Maybe the fact that Breyer said that he's retiring might have something to do with why people suddenly care about a comment that was seen back then as questionable but not yet relevant?
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
These certainly seem like realistic criteria.
I don't see why choosing among black woman from among candidates who fit these criteria would be a problem if its beneficial to do so. There's probably many of them around.
Of course, you probably wouldn't want to say that that's what's going to happen, for the reasons demonstrated on this thread, but i guess that's done now.
|
It's so discouraging that even the courts seem so ideologically aligned to the two parties. So much for justice being blind and impartial. I know Breyer was publicly trying to defend the court's integrity, but we will see how they rule on the bunch of hot button issues they've taken this session. However good or bad Biden's pick is, her rulings will be little more than symbolic if the conservatives are in lock step.
|
Well the court should reflect the country no? Since the country suffers from a large political divide it only makes sense for the court to do the same ><
|
On February 02 2022 04:19 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
So this argument is kind of moot if no-one is going to explain exactly what the attributes are that would make 'objectively the best' SC judge.
Clearly lots of people seem to think that the most important thing in the search for objectively the best judge - which can I remind everyone again only seems to have started since the idea of a black woman being given the job came up - is that the pool isn't limited.
But exactly what attributes are required?
Experience? Are the most experienced judges the best candidates?
Political neutrality? Is this now suddenly a requirement?
Is there even some reason that being 'the best person for the job' is suddenly now more important than political considerations? Why did this only happen when a black woman might get the job? I certainly laid out my own crude criteria. I don't suppose the existence of an imminent SCJ appointment might be an alternative reason for this whole discussion to come up. Hell, the problematic comment came up in early 2020; it only drew a minor amount of attention then because it wasn't relevant yet. Maybe the fact that Breyer said that he's retiring might have something to do with why people suddenly care about a comment that was seen back then as questionable but not yet relevant? Show nested quote +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 These certainly seem like realistic criteria. I don't see why choosing among black woman from among candidates who fit these criteria would be a problem if its beneficial to do so. There's probably many of them around. Of course, you probably wouldn't want to say that that's what's going to happen, for the reasons demonstrated on this thread, but i guess that's done now.
Doing it is undesirable; saying it just makes it clear that it's being done. Discrimination is hard to prove when you don't say you're doing it, and just do it.
The problem isn't that "being a black woman" is an advantage. As Drone put it, the problem is that "not being a black woman is a -100 rather than being one being a +5" (or +15 in my scenario for example, at least when compared to a white man of a common religious affiliation). The preference, even if it's a strong preference such that a non-black-woman would have to be an unrealistic amount better than the best black woman SCJ candidate, is understandable, especially given the political nature of the appointment. The strict exclusion is not.
A related point that I brought up: why is "black woman" the criteria specifically - there are other groups, such as Muslims or Asians or Native Americans, that are also underrepresented. It suggests this is about something other than merely picking a qualified candidate from a URM group.
|
In any case the "correct" candidate for the SC is practically speaking ranked as such
1. Supports the values of the nominating party
2. Can pass nomination
that's it
|
On February 02 2022 05:25 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 04:19 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 02 2022 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
So this argument is kind of moot if no-one is going to explain exactly what the attributes are that would make 'objectively the best' SC judge.
Clearly lots of people seem to think that the most important thing in the search for objectively the best judge - which can I remind everyone again only seems to have started since the idea of a black woman being given the job came up - is that the pool isn't limited.
But exactly what attributes are required?
Experience? Are the most experienced judges the best candidates?
Political neutrality? Is this now suddenly a requirement?
Is there even some reason that being 'the best person for the job' is suddenly now more important than political considerations? Why did this only happen when a black woman might get the job? I certainly laid out my own crude criteria. I don't suppose the existence of an imminent SCJ appointment might be an alternative reason for this whole discussion to come up. Hell, the problematic comment came up in early 2020; it only drew a minor amount of attention then because it wasn't relevant yet. Maybe the fact that Breyer said that he's retiring might have something to do with why people suddenly care about a comment that was seen back then as questionable but not yet relevant? 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 These certainly seem like realistic criteria. I don't see why choosing among black woman from among candidates who fit these criteria would be a problem if its beneficial to do so. There's probably many of them around. Of course, you probably wouldn't want to say that that's what's going to happen, for the reasons demonstrated on this thread, but i guess that's done now. A related point that I brought up: why is "black woman" the criteria specifically - there are other groups, such as Muslims or Asians or Native Americans, that are also underrepresented. It suggests this is about something other than merely picking a qualified candidate from a URM group.
If people honestly don't believe this is the case, I'm not saying they are wrong but it's pointless to continue to debate in this thread. The last pages have been filled with people (articulately or not) trying to say what you quoted, while the other side fundamentally disagrees or at the very least thinks it's not a problem at all (and in fact having any problem with it is a problem). I don't see either side budging.
|
On February 02 2022 07:10 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 05:25 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 04:19 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 02 2022 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
So this argument is kind of moot if no-one is going to explain exactly what the attributes are that would make 'objectively the best' SC judge.
Clearly lots of people seem to think that the most important thing in the search for objectively the best judge - which can I remind everyone again only seems to have started since the idea of a black woman being given the job came up - is that the pool isn't limited.
But exactly what attributes are required?
Experience? Are the most experienced judges the best candidates?
Political neutrality? Is this now suddenly a requirement?
Is there even some reason that being 'the best person for the job' is suddenly now more important than political considerations? Why did this only happen when a black woman might get the job? I certainly laid out my own crude criteria. I don't suppose the existence of an imminent SCJ appointment might be an alternative reason for this whole discussion to come up. Hell, the problematic comment came up in early 2020; it only drew a minor amount of attention then because it wasn't relevant yet. Maybe the fact that Breyer said that he's retiring might have something to do with why people suddenly care about a comment that was seen back then as questionable but not yet relevant? 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 These certainly seem like realistic criteria. I don't see why choosing among black woman from among candidates who fit these criteria would be a problem if its beneficial to do so. There's probably many of them around. Of course, you probably wouldn't want to say that that's what's going to happen, for the reasons demonstrated on this thread, but i guess that's done now. A related point that I brought up: why is "black woman" the criteria specifically - there are other groups, such as Muslims or Asians or Native Americans, that are also underrepresented. It suggests this is about something other than merely picking a qualified candidate from a URM group. If people honestly don't believe this is the case, I'm not saying they are wrong but it's pointless to continue to debate in this thread. The last pages have been filled with people (articulately or not) trying to say what you quoted, while the other side fundamentally disagrees or at the very least thinks it's not a problem at all (and in fact having any problem with it is a problem). I don't see either side budging.
Yes, it's pretty obvious that the choice of 'black woman' has very much to do with the fact that it is politically expedient in the current climate. Biden wants to reward the black community, a support the party has taken for granted for a while now. They want something that they can use to drive up turnout which they will sorely need in the upcoming midterms.
There's also the point that many Hispanics are actually quite conservative, so selecting a Hispanic judge wouldn't score Biden nearly as many brownie points. I'm not sure how diverse or monolithic the Muslim vote is, but doubt they'll be voting for the GOP in large numbers. You might be able to make a case for the Asian community, I guess? But I have a feeling Asian Americans are far more diverse in their voting preferences than, say, the black community.
What doesn't make sense to me is that everyone seems to be perfectly okay to select a judge to support the goals of the hardcore Christian/evangelical community (i.e. must support anti-abortion legislation) but talk about throwing a bone to the black community and suddenly the selection process is problematic and they can't possibly be selecting the best possible candidate. I just don't get it.
|
Black women are the least represented per % of the population. You gotta start somewhere. Yes, there is a lot of diversification to be done. But we may as well start with the one with the largest % of the population who is still not represented.
|
Odds are very good at this point that the primary goal of this particular nomination is to repay a favor to Biden's important ally, Jim Clyburn, and that the framing of it is cover for that. We'll see who he actually picks, but if we're being realistic about why it's "black woman" specifically... there's good reason to believe that that's the real story.
|
On February 02 2022 07:45 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 07:10 mierin wrote:On February 02 2022 05:25 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 04:19 Jockmcplop wrote:On February 02 2022 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 02:53 Jockmcplop wrote:
So this argument is kind of moot if no-one is going to explain exactly what the attributes are that would make 'objectively the best' SC judge.
Clearly lots of people seem to think that the most important thing in the search for objectively the best judge - which can I remind everyone again only seems to have started since the idea of a black woman being given the job came up - is that the pool isn't limited.
But exactly what attributes are required?
Experience? Are the most experienced judges the best candidates?
Political neutrality? Is this now suddenly a requirement?
Is there even some reason that being 'the best person for the job' is suddenly now more important than political considerations? Why did this only happen when a black woman might get the job? I certainly laid out my own crude criteria. I don't suppose the existence of an imminent SCJ appointment might be an alternative reason for this whole discussion to come up. Hell, the problematic comment came up in early 2020; it only drew a minor amount of attention then because it wasn't relevant yet. Maybe the fact that Breyer said that he's retiring might have something to do with why people suddenly care about a comment that was seen back then as questionable but not yet relevant? 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 These certainly seem like realistic criteria. I don't see why choosing among black woman from among candidates who fit these criteria would be a problem if its beneficial to do so. There's probably many of them around. Of course, you probably wouldn't want to say that that's what's going to happen, for the reasons demonstrated on this thread, but i guess that's done now. A related point that I brought up: why is "black woman" the criteria specifically - there are other groups, such as Muslims or Asians or Native Americans, that are also underrepresented. It suggests this is about something other than merely picking a qualified candidate from a URM group. If people honestly don't believe this is the case, I'm not saying they are wrong but it's pointless to continue to debate in this thread. The last pages have been filled with people (articulately or not) trying to say what you quoted, while the other side fundamentally disagrees or at the very least thinks it's not a problem at all (and in fact having any problem with it is a problem). I don't see either side budging. Yes, it's pretty obvious that the choice of 'black woman' has very much to do with the fact that it is politically expedient in the current climate. Biden wants to reward the black community, a support the party has taken for granted for a while now. They want something that they can use to drive up turnout which they will sorely need in the upcoming midterms. There's also the point that many Hispanics are actually quite conservative, so selecting a Hispanic judge wouldn't score Biden nearly as many brownie points. I'm not sure how diverse or monolithic the Muslim vote is, but doubt they'll be voting for the GOP in large numbers. You might be able to make a case for the Asian community, I guess? But I have a feeling Asian Americans are far more diverse in their voting preferences than, say, the black community. What doesn't make sense to me is that everyone seems to be perfectly okay to select a judge to support the goals of the hardcore Christian/evangelical community (i.e. must support anti-abortion legislation) but talk about throwing a bone to the black community and suddenly the selection process is problematic and they can't possibly be selecting the best possible candidate. I just don't get it.
I don't think everyone is okay with the crazy evangelical judges republicans put everywhere? At least i am not. The difference is that i don't think anything i can do or say can influence the US republicans, they are way too crazy and fanatical for that.
When i say something like that, i don't mean literally all of them, but the GOP is definitively evil beyond any redemption, and a large part of the population seems to be okay with that.
But i am basically by default very much not okay with almost anything the republican party does, including their selection of judges.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
