|
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 |
I also fail to see where "everyone is OK with that".
|
On February 02 2022 08:11 LegalLord wrote:
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.
Are we alleging he cut this deal in 2020 and made the campaign promise accordingly? Or that he cut this deal recently and happened to have a cool campaign promise in his back pocket as justification?
Also did Trump or Reagan have quid pro quo reasons for making identitarian promises or are we only presuming this about Biden?
|
On February 02 2022 08:13 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 07:45 EnDeR_ wrote: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.
There's also a lot of people in the US who think the Democratic party is a communist evil organization and beyond any redemption and a large part of the population seems to be okay with that.
So yeah, it's just a matter of perspective.
|
|
|
On February 02 2022 10:15 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 08:11 LegalLord wrote:
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. Are we alleging he cut this deal in 2020 and made the campaign promise accordingly? Or that he cut this deal recently and happened to have a cool campaign promise in his back pocket as justification? Also did Trump or Reagan have quid pro quo reasons for making identitarian promises or are we only presuming this about Biden?
The former is definitely far more likely and there’s enough out of Clyburn in 2020 to suggest, if not quite prove, his hand in the original announcement.
The mention of Trump and Reagan is an obvious whataboutism and can be dismissed as such.
|
|
|
Canada11607 Posts
On February 02 2022 07:55 Mohdoo wrote:
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.
You think? Over and above indigenous women in America?
|
|
|
On February 02 2022 11:18 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 10:15 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 08:11 LegalLord wrote:
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. Are we alleging he cut this deal in 2020 and made the campaign promise accordingly? Or that he cut this deal recently and happened to have a cool campaign promise in his back pocket as justification? Also did Trump or Reagan have quid pro quo reasons for making identitarian promises or are we only presuming this about Biden? The former is definitely far more likely and there’s enough out of Clyburn in 2020 to suggest, if not quite prove, his hand in the original announcement. The mention of Trump and Reagan is an obvious whataboutism and can be dismissed as such.
Precedent is whataboutism, we should put you on the court with that logic. I’d be on firmer ground, I think, to say unsupported corruption allegations are irresponsible innuendo and can be dismissed as such. But honestly I don’t care if you call Biden corrupt, I just think this conversation sucks and you’re being ridiculously aggressive about it.
Can we talk about something else? Russia’s about to (maybe not?) invade Ukraine and maybe start WW3, maybe that’d be less depressing a conversation?
|
On February 02 2022 13:02 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 11:18 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 10:15 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 08:11 LegalLord wrote:
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. Are we alleging he cut this deal in 2020 and made the campaign promise accordingly? Or that he cut this deal recently and happened to have a cool campaign promise in his back pocket as justification? Also did Trump or Reagan have quid pro quo reasons for making identitarian promises or are we only presuming this about Biden? The former is definitely far more likely and there’s enough out of Clyburn in 2020 to suggest, if not quite prove, his hand in the original announcement. The mention of Trump and Reagan is an obvious whataboutism and can be dismissed as such. Precedent is whataboutism, we should put you on the court with that logic. I’d be on firmer ground, I think, to say unsupported corruption allegations are irresponsible innuendo and can be dismissed as such. But honestly I don’t care if you call Biden corrupt, I just think this conversation sucks and you’re being ridiculously aggressive about it. Can we talk about something else? Russia’s about to (maybe not?) invade Ukraine and maybe start WW3, maybe that’d be less depressing a conversation?
It's an obvious whataboutism. No one is looking to justify Biden's decision on the precedent of "well Trump/Reagan did it this way in the past, so it's fair to [purportedly] swap political favors for Biden now!" Precedent is Kavanaugh, and few people are looking to say that Biden should nominate Kavanaugh's Democrat equivalent. Or maybe it's not a whataboutism in that what you're saying is you want to be the first person to say just that?
|
On February 02 2022 13:31 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 13:02 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 11:18 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 10:15 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 08:11 LegalLord wrote:
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. Are we alleging he cut this deal in 2020 and made the campaign promise accordingly? Or that he cut this deal recently and happened to have a cool campaign promise in his back pocket as justification? Also did Trump or Reagan have quid pro quo reasons for making identitarian promises or are we only presuming this about Biden? The former is definitely far more likely and there’s enough out of Clyburn in 2020 to suggest, if not quite prove, his hand in the original announcement. The mention of Trump and Reagan is an obvious whataboutism and can be dismissed as such. Precedent is whataboutism, we should put you on the court with that logic. I’d be on firmer ground, I think, to say unsupported corruption allegations are irresponsible innuendo and can be dismissed as such. But honestly I don’t care if you call Biden corrupt, I just think this conversation sucks and you’re being ridiculously aggressive about it. Can we talk about something else? Russia’s about to (maybe not?) invade Ukraine and maybe start WW3, maybe that’d be less depressing a conversation? It's an obvious whataboutism. No one is looking to justify Biden's decision on the precedent of "well Trump/Reagan did it this way in the past, so it's fair to [purportedly] swap political favors for Biden now!" Precedent is Kavanaugh, and few people are looking to say that Biden should nominate Kavanaugh's Democrat equivalent. Or maybe it's not a whataboutism in that what you're saying is you want to be the first person to say just that?
Kavanaugh?
|
On February 02 2022 13:34 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 13:31 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 13:02 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 11:18 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 10:15 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 08:11 LegalLord wrote:
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. Are we alleging he cut this deal in 2020 and made the campaign promise accordingly? Or that he cut this deal recently and happened to have a cool campaign promise in his back pocket as justification? Also did Trump or Reagan have quid pro quo reasons for making identitarian promises or are we only presuming this about Biden? The former is definitely far more likely and there’s enough out of Clyburn in 2020 to suggest, if not quite prove, his hand in the original announcement. The mention of Trump and Reagan is an obvious whataboutism and can be dismissed as such. Precedent is whataboutism, we should put you on the court with that logic. I’d be on firmer ground, I think, to say unsupported corruption allegations are irresponsible innuendo and can be dismissed as such. But honestly I don’t care if you call Biden corrupt, I just think this conversation sucks and you’re being ridiculously aggressive about it. Can we talk about something else? Russia’s about to (maybe not?) invade Ukraine and maybe start WW3, maybe that’d be less depressing a conversation? It's an obvious whataboutism. No one is looking to justify Biden's decision on the precedent of "well Trump/Reagan did it this way in the past, so it's fair to [purportedly] swap political favors for Biden now!" Precedent is Kavanaugh, and few people are looking to say that Biden should nominate Kavanaugh's Democrat equivalent. Or maybe it's not a whataboutism in that what you're saying is you want to be the first person to say just that? Kavanaugh?
The guy that Trump nominated to the Supreme Court in 2018? It was pretty controversial at the time.
|
On February 02 2022 13:31 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 13:02 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 11:18 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 10:15 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 08:11 LegalLord wrote:
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. Are we alleging he cut this deal in 2020 and made the campaign promise accordingly? Or that he cut this deal recently and happened to have a cool campaign promise in his back pocket as justification? Also did Trump or Reagan have quid pro quo reasons for making identitarian promises or are we only presuming this about Biden? The former is definitely far more likely and there’s enough out of Clyburn in 2020 to suggest, if not quite prove, his hand in the original announcement. The mention of Trump and Reagan is an obvious whataboutism and can be dismissed as such. Precedent is whataboutism, we should put you on the court with that logic. I’d be on firmer ground, I think, to say unsupported corruption allegations are irresponsible innuendo and can be dismissed as such. But honestly I don’t care if you call Biden corrupt, I just think this conversation sucks and you’re being ridiculously aggressive about it. Can we talk about something else? Russia’s about to (maybe not?) invade Ukraine and maybe start WW3, maybe that’d be less depressing a conversation? It's an obvious whataboutism. No one is looking to justify Biden's decision on the precedent of "well Trump/Reagan did it this way in the past, so it's fair to [purportedly] swap political favors for Biden now!" Precedent is Kavanaugh, and few people are looking to say that Biden should nominate Kavanaugh's Democrat equivalent. Or maybe it's not a whataboutism in that what you're saying is you want to be the first person to say just that?
I mean, "they did it first, so I'll do it now" has been the Republican's go to threat any time Democrats try to do anything. And if we're going to constantly rail on about how awful Democrats are then maybe we can stop holding them to convenient double standards?
And yeah, I think there's way more of a foundation for making a comparison to Trump's nominees, than there is in your insinuation of some kind of quid pro quo. You don't get to ignore your burden of any kind of logical substantiation, and then just tell people their responses are whataboutism. That's not how argument or debate work.
|
On February 02 2022 13:52 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 13:31 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 13:02 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 11:18 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 10:15 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 08:11 LegalLord wrote:
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. Are we alleging he cut this deal in 2020 and made the campaign promise accordingly? Or that he cut this deal recently and happened to have a cool campaign promise in his back pocket as justification? Also did Trump or Reagan have quid pro quo reasons for making identitarian promises or are we only presuming this about Biden? The former is definitely far more likely and there’s enough out of Clyburn in 2020 to suggest, if not quite prove, his hand in the original announcement. The mention of Trump and Reagan is an obvious whataboutism and can be dismissed as such. Precedent is whataboutism, we should put you on the court with that logic. I’d be on firmer ground, I think, to say unsupported corruption allegations are irresponsible innuendo and can be dismissed as such. But honestly I don’t care if you call Biden corrupt, I just think this conversation sucks and you’re being ridiculously aggressive about it. Can we talk about something else? Russia’s about to (maybe not?) invade Ukraine and maybe start WW3, maybe that’d be less depressing a conversation? It's an obvious whataboutism. No one is looking to justify Biden's decision on the precedent of "well Trump/Reagan did it this way in the past, so it's fair to [purportedly] swap political favors for Biden now!" Precedent is Kavanaugh, and few people are looking to say that Biden should nominate Kavanaugh's Democrat equivalent. Or maybe it's not a whataboutism in that what you're saying is you want to be the first person to say just that? I mean, "they did it first, so I'll do it now" has been the Republican's go to threat any time Democrats try to do anything. And if we're going to constantly rail on about how awful Democrats are then maybe we can stop holding them to convenient double standards? And yeah, I think there's way more of a foundation for making a comparison to Trump's nominees, than there is in your insinuation of some kind of quid pro quo. You don't get to ignore your burden of any kind of logical substantiation, and then just tell people their responses are whataboutism. That's not how argument or debate work.
Hey, if there's no desire to claim a moral high ground on the Democrats' side in the choice they make, but merely treat it as "to the winners go the spoils" - feel free. But you can't simultaneously say that the criticism is unfair and set the standard to merely "not worse than Trump" in the same breath without being hypocritical.
I will admit the Clyburn angle is speculative. Reading much of what he said in 2020, the extent to which Clyburn talks up "black woman SCJ" does raise an eyebrow, and the fact that one of the leading candidates is one of his personal picks does add credibility to that. But that's not proof, merely a credible story. Just likely enough to be worth mentioning, and watching for when Biden does ultimately announce a name.
|
On February 02 2022 13:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 13:34 Husyelt wrote:On February 02 2022 13:31 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 13:02 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 11:18 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 10:15 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 08:11 LegalLord wrote:
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. Are we alleging he cut this deal in 2020 and made the campaign promise accordingly? Or that he cut this deal recently and happened to have a cool campaign promise in his back pocket as justification? Also did Trump or Reagan have quid pro quo reasons for making identitarian promises or are we only presuming this about Biden? The former is definitely far more likely and there’s enough out of Clyburn in 2020 to suggest, if not quite prove, his hand in the original announcement. The mention of Trump and Reagan is an obvious whataboutism and can be dismissed as such. Precedent is whataboutism, we should put you on the court with that logic. I’d be on firmer ground, I think, to say unsupported corruption allegations are irresponsible innuendo and can be dismissed as such. But honestly I don’t care if you call Biden corrupt, I just think this conversation sucks and you’re being ridiculously aggressive about it. Can we talk about something else? Russia’s about to (maybe not?) invade Ukraine and maybe start WW3, maybe that’d be less depressing a conversation? It's an obvious whataboutism. No one is looking to justify Biden's decision on the precedent of "well Trump/Reagan did it this way in the past, so it's fair to [purportedly] swap political favors for Biden now!" Precedent is Kavanaugh, and few people are looking to say that Biden should nominate Kavanaugh's Democrat equivalent. Or maybe it's not a whataboutism in that what you're saying is you want to be the first person to say just that? Kavanaugh? The guy that Trump nominated to the Supreme Court in 2018? It was pretty controversial at the time.
What does he have to do with a Democrat equivalent? Ford couldn't even have her one friend confirm the allegation at the time. I believed Ford's testimony when she spoke initially, but in retrospect she had nothing to present that would have made that actually controversial beyond Avenatti's ridiculous circle jerk.
|
On February 02 2022 14:06 Husyelt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 13:46 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 13:34 Husyelt wrote:On February 02 2022 13:31 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 13:02 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 11:18 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 10:15 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 08:11 LegalLord wrote:
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. Are we alleging he cut this deal in 2020 and made the campaign promise accordingly? Or that he cut this deal recently and happened to have a cool campaign promise in his back pocket as justification? Also did Trump or Reagan have quid pro quo reasons for making identitarian promises or are we only presuming this about Biden? The former is definitely far more likely and there’s enough out of Clyburn in 2020 to suggest, if not quite prove, his hand in the original announcement. The mention of Trump and Reagan is an obvious whataboutism and can be dismissed as such. Precedent is whataboutism, we should put you on the court with that logic. I’d be on firmer ground, I think, to say unsupported corruption allegations are irresponsible innuendo and can be dismissed as such. But honestly I don’t care if you call Biden corrupt, I just think this conversation sucks and you’re being ridiculously aggressive about it. Can we talk about something else? Russia’s about to (maybe not?) invade Ukraine and maybe start WW3, maybe that’d be less depressing a conversation? It's an obvious whataboutism. No one is looking to justify Biden's decision on the precedent of "well Trump/Reagan did it this way in the past, so it's fair to [purportedly] swap political favors for Biden now!" Precedent is Kavanaugh, and few people are looking to say that Biden should nominate Kavanaugh's Democrat equivalent. Or maybe it's not a whataboutism in that what you're saying is you want to be the first person to say just that? Kavanaugh? The guy that Trump nominated to the Supreme Court in 2018? It was pretty controversial at the time. What does he have to do with a Democrat equivalent? Ford couldn't even have her one friend confirm the allegation at the time. I believed Ford's testimony when she spoke initially, but in retrospect she had nothing to present that would have made that actually controversial beyond Avenatti's ridiculous circle jerk.
If we're talking about precedent, Kavanaugh is precedent.
Others will have their own take on him - and I suspect it will lean much more on giving credibility to the accusations against him than I would - but I'll reiterate my own take from a few pages back on him:
On January 31 2022 08:44 LegalLord wrote:
Kavanaugh was definitely a pretty political pick. Unlike with Gorsuch, you really can't quite call him a SCJ pick of unquestionable integrity (he seems pretty political for a judge), and Trump did use him as a means to remake the court by replacing swing-justice Kennedy with a highly reliable pillar of support for his own policies. That entire concern immediately went out the window when Democrats decided to bet it all on #MeToo, and overplayed their hand with unreliable witnesses that couldn't make anything substantial stick.
Democrats could definitely seek to put someone on the court who is as questionable as Kavanaugh was before all the accusation stuff took center stage. That's within their power to do, and there's a good chance they could jam through that nomination. But should that be the goal, and if so, does that put into question if Democrats can really claim to be the "better" party, morally speaking?
|
On February 02 2022 13:31 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 13:02 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 11:18 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 10:15 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 08:11 LegalLord wrote:
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. Are we alleging he cut this deal in 2020 and made the campaign promise accordingly? Or that he cut this deal recently and happened to have a cool campaign promise in his back pocket as justification? Also did Trump or Reagan have quid pro quo reasons for making identitarian promises or are we only presuming this about Biden? The former is definitely far more likely and there’s enough out of Clyburn in 2020 to suggest, if not quite prove, his hand in the original announcement. The mention of Trump and Reagan is an obvious whataboutism and can be dismissed as such. Precedent is whataboutism, we should put you on the court with that logic. I’d be on firmer ground, I think, to say unsupported corruption allegations are irresponsible innuendo and can be dismissed as such. But honestly I don’t care if you call Biden corrupt, I just think this conversation sucks and you’re being ridiculously aggressive about it. Can we talk about something else? Russia’s about to (maybe not?) invade Ukraine and maybe start WW3, maybe that’d be less depressing a conversation? It's an obvious whataboutism. No one is looking to justify Biden's decision on the precedent of "well Trump/Reagan did it this way in the past, so it's fair to [purportedly] swap political favors for Biden now!" Precedent is Kavanaugh, and few people are looking to say that Biden should nominate Kavanaugh's Democrat equivalent. Or maybe it's not a whataboutism in that what you're saying is you want to be the first person to say just that?
Precedent is in announcing as a promise (campaign promise even, for Reagan) “I’m going to nominate a person from [insert minority group]!” Don’t get me wrong, I hate both Reagan and Trump, and in both cases it feels like something that would get criticized from the left as tokenism. But it’s a pretty normal promise.
As for the quid pro quo angle, it’s not that the premise is totally implausible to me, it’s just that you’ve presented zero evidence and the thing it’s meant to “explain” seems totally normal without some backroom deal explanation. Besides, if you’re gonna do corrupt backroom deals, why advertise it on the campaign trail? You don’t even know at that point if you’re gonna win, or whether you’ll get to nominate anybody if you do.
I think “Kamala Harris is proof affirmative action is bad” was an extremely bad take, maybe racist in a mundane sort of way, but I don’t especially care about defending her honor either. If you want to put an asterisk next to every name in your US history book of a person who wouldn’t have gotten their job if they were a different race feel free, but I think you’re gonna find more names getting starred than not.
|
Northern Ireland27381 Posts
On February 02 2022 13:52 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 13:31 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 13:02 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 11:18 LegalLord wrote:On February 02 2022 10:15 ChristianS wrote:On February 02 2022 08:11 LegalLord wrote:
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. Are we alleging he cut this deal in 2020 and made the campaign promise accordingly? Or that he cut this deal recently and happened to have a cool campaign promise in his back pocket as justification? Also did Trump or Reagan have quid pro quo reasons for making identitarian promises or are we only presuming this about Biden? The former is definitely far more likely and there’s enough out of Clyburn in 2020 to suggest, if not quite prove, his hand in the original announcement. The mention of Trump and Reagan is an obvious whataboutism and can be dismissed as such. Precedent is whataboutism, we should put you on the court with that logic. I’d be on firmer ground, I think, to say unsupported corruption allegations are irresponsible innuendo and can be dismissed as such. But honestly I don’t care if you call Biden corrupt, I just think this conversation sucks and you’re being ridiculously aggressive about it. Can we talk about something else? Russia’s about to (maybe not?) invade Ukraine and maybe start WW3, maybe that’d be less depressing a conversation? It's an obvious whataboutism. No one is looking to justify Biden's decision on the precedent of "well Trump/Reagan did it this way in the past, so it's fair to [purportedly] swap political favors for Biden now!" Precedent is Kavanaugh, and few people are looking to say that Biden should nominate Kavanaugh's Democrat equivalent. Or maybe it's not a whataboutism in that what you're saying is you want to be the first person to say just that? I mean, "they did it first, so I'll do it now" has been the Republican's go to threat any time Democrats try to do anything. And if we're going to constantly rail on about how awful Democrats are then maybe we can stop holding them to convenient double standards? And yeah, I think there's way more of a foundation for making a comparison to Trump's nominees, than there is in your insinuation of some kind of quid pro quo. You don't get to ignore your burden of any kind of logical substantiation, and then just tell people their responses are whataboutism. That's not how argument or debate work.
Is it even whataboutism?
Perhaps I use this particular neologism differently than others, I always took it in usage to be ‘ok this thing is bad but what about this other bad thing?’
Whereas in this particular case people on one side of this discussion are arguing that, by and large the appointment of a black woman is a good thing, and merely pointing to past precedent to augment that particular argument by countering the ‘best candidate’ iterations.
Unless I’m missing some new development in the discussion, I mostly skimmed the last few pages of backlog.
|
Norway28894 Posts
Technically, aren't either Hispanic men or Asian women the least represented group? Quickly googling % of minority groups in the US, I get that 13-14% are Black, 7.2% are Asian, 18-19% are Hispanic. Black and Hispanic already have 1 representative, Asians have 0. (Giving the 13-14% group 2 justices before the 7.2% group gets one or the 18-19% gets two doesn't add up to me.)
At the same time, if we look at this in terms of both gender and ethnicity, Hispanic men might be sufficiently gender-represented that their lack of representation from both identity brackets is 'fine', and getting a 4-5 gender split rather than 6-3 is something I'm on board with. And I get that even if 'mathematically', Asians should have 1 justice before African Americans get two, African Americans have faced more discrimination than Asians have and are more 'in need' of someone who can highlight/fight for their cause. (In that case though, should not Native Americans rank even higher?)
Honestly, that's a bit facetious, I get it. But it's supposed to highlight what I perceive as too big of a focus on identity. This is a bit of my European leftist speaking, but I see the American left's focus on identity as somewhat counter-productive. It's not that I don't acknowledge that different ethnic groups are marginalized in different ways and that these groups benefit from having prominent spokespeople, it's that I think all these various ethnic groups are also probably marginalized in similar ways and I see the focus on identity as occasionally in conflict with the, from my perspective more important struggle, that of 'class'. IF we were to choose based on 'identity', my own inclination would be 'find a person who grew up in a home making less than 70% of median income for their region' or whatever, as I'd think that perspective would be highly desirable. (Not entirely serious, but also not entirely joking.)
I also recognize that the appointment of SCJs is political in nature. Consequently, I'm not arguing for 'merit' in terms of 'has the most formal experience', but I want the appointment to be the one who has most skillfully and consistently argued the law in a way that leads to the political conclusions I am most in agreement with. While my own political conclusions are only somewhat in line with those of the democratic party, what would make the most sense to me would be various factions of the democratic party argue in favor of more a more radical or moderate justice based on where those factions find themselves. This is why I think 'has x opinion on abortion' is more relevant than 'is of x ethnicity' - the past political statements/opinions made/held by people is a much better indicator of their future political statements/opinions than their ethnicity is, and the political statements/opinions (along with their understanding of law and ability to argue in a formally satisfactory manner) is what is most important.
Also, I do have the impression that for conservatives, Scalia was particularly well regarded, for just this reason. He's not someone that could just be replaced by some random top 50 conservative judge outside the SC - from the perspective of using legalese to argue a conservative position, he was somewhat unique. And then I'm thinking that it could potentially be the case that there exists a judge that is not a black woman who happens to be the progressive equivalent of this - a person who actually is 'better' at convincingly arguing the political pieces we want pushed forward. Removing 93% of potential candidates, from my perspective, makes it less likely that we find this person. This isn't slighting black women in the slightest - I'd have the exact same opinion for every other ethnic or minority group as well (even though the % would change slightly. )
Anyway, answering a post from mierin up there - none of this is attempting to change people's mind. That really should not be the approach to a discussion like this, because a) people almost never change their mind based on an online discussion, at least not immediately, and because b) having the mindset of 'winning' the discussion can negatively influence how people approach a discussion. I see this as an exchange of viewpoints with the aim of mutually increased understanding of each other's points of view. We might sway the opinions of people who are reading without having made up their mind prior to joining in, but the idea of these discussions should not be to 'win'. As far as I'm concerned, the more people treat it like that, the more we all lose. Consequently, I'm also rather negative towards comments that start out with some type of 'this is a stupid discussion because x point of view is nonsense' or ones that attempt to attribute some nefarious or malicious thought or prejudice to the person making a particular point. I have 0 issues with people disagreeing with my position - but I think it sucks when people think that I have arrived at my position because I have some repressed inherent racism that makes me skeptical towards the notion that a black woman could actually be the best person for the job.
|
On February 02 2022 08:13 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2022 07:45 EnDeR_ wrote: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.
I meant okay with the selection process. I also think filling SCOTUS with obvious partisan hacks is going to be detrimental in the long term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
