You can't be serious. Like you actually can't be serious. Are you really comparing someone wanting a black female as a SC judge after 200+ years of never having one given there massive part of the overall demographic of this country's make up with the sheer dominance of white males in American economic and political systems for the past 200+ years?
Yes, Black Females today dominate the country, control the money, write all the laws, owns all the land, restrict everyone's else's rights to vote. White men are highly oppressed. Seems like an excellent comparison. Last I checked, we just had record turnout in the last election - one that was largely fought over the issue of people's opinions on a racist, bigoted President.
There you go with your bad faith framing. Latino women have been SC judges before btw and that's great especially given the large part of the American demographic they make up. No, picking a female black SC judge for the first time in American history is not fighting racism with racism. I don't agree with that framing.
You still haven't named a single judge in America, past or present, that's qualified according to you.
There is not much to discuss if someone doesnt want to continue to fill the seat with status quo. I get that. But to actually think someones race or sex is a lead qualifier for arguably one of the most powerful seats in governance is insanely stupid that even the lowest informed voter knows is ignorant. Biden did it with Harris and it blew up in his face. And he is doing it again. This is probably one of the easiest decisions Biden can make. Dont put an old white dude in the seat. Thats all. Slam dunk. Instead he is doing the exact opposite. He would be better off putting an old white dude in there instead of making the Harris mistake again.
Then your answer to my question is, "No, I don't think it's wrong that Biden is excluding other candidates based on their race and gender". Correct?
With continued population growth, one would expect record turn out every year. I acknowledge that is a red herring statement, much like your previous statement. You dismiss the premise as always. Even with 'record' turnout, this country still has abysmally low voter turn out. Americans have settled on the idea its the same politics as usual and nothing changes. Obama proved this and Trump reaffirmed it. Weekend at Bidens further illustrates the POTUS is about as powerful as the Royal Family.
He won. He did both of these before the election - choosing Harris and saying he will nominate a black female. Blowing it in his face imply he would lose due to those. But he won.
His only objective is to call Biden a racist because he is fulfilling a campaign promise to nominate the first black woman to the Supreme Court. He doesn't actually care about actual racism. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixg...erse-is-presidents-biden-prospective-cabinet/ The article doesn't include Biden's cabinet also having the first openly gay senate-approved cabinet member (Buttigieg). But yea... Biden is racist and sexist.
You know one doesn't win arguments by merely framing a premise by ignoring context. Dude, we know you don't give a **** about racism. It's obvious.
Yes, it is right. I thought the same when Reagan did it. When Trump did it. And when Obama did it (though he didn’t announce it we all knew). At the group level, society level, females were excluded and black females are still excluded. People generally understand and accept that's why past and current Presidents announce and follow through with nominating from the excluded group. People know this isn't about sexism or racism. They also know it's not a practical issue as there are well-qualified jurists within those groups (only true sexists or racists believe there aren't any). Now, that doesn't make your perspective wrong. I said it before but I'll do it again in a different way. At an individual level, a person left out of consideration can legitimately feel discriminated against. But no individual live in isolation outside of society and ignorance of history, especially well-qualified jurists who are well aware of history. This is why there has never been a well-qualified jurist that comes out and complains of being discriminated against by the POTUS of past or present through an exclusion for nomination.
I'm not assuming anything. I'm talking about white people in general across the USA, mainly because whites (especially white males) have been the beneficiaries of racist behavior throughout most of the time since America was founded
No thx. That's a group of conservative and libertarian. More like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Scholars_of_constitutional_law hey, you want to finish answering about who decides to limits individual and private entity speech and to what extend?
Not following this very closely, but this mentions some: https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...t-promise-biden-essentializes-race-and-gender Biden might have considered any number of diverse candidates with left-leaning judicial philosophies for the Supreme Court seat, including Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. circuit, who would be the first Indian-American nominated to the bench; and Paul Watford, a Black judge who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Neither of these candidates may be clearly preferred to Jackson, Kruger or other accomplished Black women whom Biden is vetting. But neither should they (or any others) be precluded from consideration based solely on their identities. Biden’s promise to not appoint any judge who isn’t both black and female was a political decision. I think it ultimately does a disservice to the (I’m sure highly qualified) judge he does eventually appoint. It steers the public away from their professional qualifications and instead has them focus on their identity. That’s the problem.
Interesting to see that a white conservative (formerly of the American Enterprise Institute) professor in the UK is also critical of Joe Biden...
haven't followed the last few pages of this thread all that closely, but seems to me that once again here Biden has committed an unforced error/scored an own goal against himself--as it seems he is routinely prone to do. Yes, he made a promise during the campaign in order to win the support of politicians in South Carolina, which he needed to win the presidential election. No, he did not need to announce this upon Breyer's retirement. Yes, he could have just remained silent and named an excellent black female judge in February. No he would not have had to say at that time that she was nominated because of her color or sex. Biden just continues to be his own worst enemy, which is unfortunate since we should all hope for his success. 76 percent want Biden to consider 'all possible nominees' for Supreme Court: poll https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday...t-biden-to-consider-all-possible-nominees-for excerpt: The majority of Americans who participated in a new poll want President Biden to consider "all possible nominees" following the president's commitment to nominate a Black woman to the high court. An ABC News/Ipsos poll out Sunday showed that 76 percent of Americans wanted the president to consider "all possible nominees" while just 23 percent wanted him to only consider Black women for the nomination. Fifty-four percent of Democrats agreed that Biden should consider all potential candidates, according to the poll. The poll was conducted between Jan. 28-29 and included a national sample of 510 adults. It has a margin of error of 4.9 points. more at the link
