US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3477

On February 02 2022 17:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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 17:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
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.)

On February 02 2022 18:40 EnDeR_ wrote:

The European perspective doesn't apply quite as well to the US. We are significantly less diverse. You point out that class struggles (i.e. work to resolve inequality) are more important than fighting to have representation where decisions are made. I think that just reflects your own experience (and mine!) where our concerns are more material in nature. We worry about how much money we are going to earn, how many holidays we can take and if we can afford that house, etc. I'd imagine that with people from under-represented groups the concerns are more existential in nature.

On February 02 2022 13:31 LegalLord wrote:

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 19:03 GreenHorizons wrote:

This makes me curious if anyone in this discussion has read anything on racial capitalism?

On February 02 2022 20:30 Blargh wrote:
I don't understand how there are people that think the supreme court is some source of objectivity. It's completely ridiculous, as it's clear that political views and what the person "represents" are the determining factor in their appointments. The Supreme Court is just another source of partisanship and identity politics are intrinsic to that. There is clearly much more to an appointment than simply their talents (something which is inherently difficult to measure).

I would say Biden choosing to select exclusively a black woman for Supreme Court Justice seems silly from an equity point of view, given how there have yet to be all sorts of minorities to ever reach the Supreme Court (as Drone said). But 107/113 of SCJs have been white men, so, I'm certainly not concerned about it excluding white men. Clarence and O'connor were both selected specifically to be token minorities of their party. Humorously, Clarence Thomas is probably the worst SCJ, having all sorts of nonsensical views, even by Republican standards.

To get back to the silly debate on who the objective (lol) "best" justice is... While qualifications and prestige are great qualities, there are many qualities that are beneficial outside of simply those. I'd be more willing to accept that there is an objective "best" for something like Chess, or sports, but the idea is rather ridiculous in this case. You could for instance, value diversified perspectives so that every issue would be seen through as many unique eyes as possible. Do I expect a court of purely men to have a complete understanding of women's issues? Not really. Which is why adding a black woman to the court would be beneficial. The question is whether those benefits outweigh the benefits of adding a more experienced, respected justice. I'd argue that there are enough competent justices out there that you could fulfill both criteria just fine, at least for most minorities. But you know, we're all convinced that society is a meritocracy.

I think the bigger problem than partisan (or identity) appointments to the Supreme Court is the completely ridiculous design and "purpose" of the SC. Ultimately, all they are supposed to do is uphold the Constitution. That sounds all good and well, except that the Constitution is full of dumb shit, and frequently not at all relevant to the year 2022. And for some reason, America's sole goal is to worship the Constitution. This creates a situation where justices are stuck between choosing to "uphold" some constitutional nonsense and choosing what they think is morally or philosophically correct. I'd say that there's typically a combination of the two in most justices. But how is a supreme court justice supposed to know whether abortion is a constitutional right? Why are they making this dramatic decision? It's a complete lack of democracy. The supreme court is this enormous sham, and every citizen is the victim. (The typical argument is that it is the responsibility of Congress to make those changes, which as we know, is increasingly partisan and non-productive.)

On February 02 2022 22:04 JimmiC wrote:And to everyone, at what point do we bring all these sanctions were talking about for Russia on China or do we care what they are doing to the non Han in China?

On February 03 2022 00:25 JimmiC wrote:

Yeah its not new, just funny that you hear non stop from the "right" about cancel culture, when they have been doing it forever (think Janet Jackson or before that anyone who was gay, or not like them) to now Trump who tries to do it to anyone who disagrees with him, even if they are much longer standing members of the party he conned.

On February 03 2022 01:31 Doc.Rivers wrote:


Calling a politician a RINO, or trying to primary a politician, is very different from the concept of canceling someone.

In other news, Jeff Zucker has now "canceled" himself.

https://twitter.com/brianstelter/status/1488905768342589450