So... you now agree judge Rodgers wasn't blocked due to race or gender. And the odd conjecture that she would have been placed on the supreme court if it weren't for Biden blocking her from a federal court in 2003. Good that fallacy can be put to rest.
So... you now agree that Trump made a good decision not nominating her and the filibuster is useful. There is hope for you yet. Good that fallacy can be put to rest.
She was a Republican, so I'm not sure how she's relevant to this thread. Biden won't be appointing a Republican of any color.
I agree trump's decision to not nominate her was a good one. I said nothing about the filibuster being good or bad. I would have favored her getting an up-down vote and would have hoped that republican senators would have deemed her political and judicial opinions were too far extreme.
If you have the opportunity to pick one and only one person, and you can pick whoever you want (essentially having the #1 overall pick in the draft), or in the case of college admissions, a limited number out of a huge pool of candidates, why would you just pick one of the many people who are "good enough" instead of picking "the best"?
Perhaps because the vast majority of the time, there is no consensus as to who the best candidate is.
That isn't really an answer though. That would be a reason to pick from among those candidates who are arguably the best candidate. Think of a draft where there are a few players who could go #1 overall. Everyone in the draft is "good enough" to have a shot to play in the NBA (that is why they are being drafted), but you don't pick any of the 60+ players people think could be drafted, you pick one of the two or three that are arguably the best. So again, why would you settle for a "good enough" candidate, when you have the opportunity to pick whoever you want?
I'd sit and entertain thots if the next Republican pick isn't a sock puppet from the Federalist Society. You know...that list that doesn't necessarily describe merit or whether they'd uphold the Constitution but more of a score on ideological purity for a lifetime appointment. I guess that's considered an upgrade over a crony intern who's a "family friend", but those abortions were gutted early, so they don't count right? This 6-2 posturing is rich, but Cons give more ****s about scrotus seats than any other single action by a president barring blowing up foreign brown people.
When Trump picked Barrett, he proclaimed he was going to pick a woman, so he took all the men out of the equation. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall you or the other posters complaining about Biden, creating or responding in threads criticizing Trump. Why didn't you make the same argument then?
Especially where things have become so bitterly partisan. For many of these people wringing their hands over Biden's pick I highly doubt no matter who Biden picks whether it's a black woman or not would be who they consider the best.
You've already provided the answer when by your own admission who you think is the best Justice wouldn't mean objective standards that you yourself outlined. In other words, who is the "best" is inherently subjective and likely who Biden thinks is the best you and many others wouldn't agree to anyway. Even then by the objective standards that you listed the names that have put out there appear to be very qualified.
All of the arguments I've seen made criticizing Biden are based on an abstract view that by limiting it to black woman means that the 'best" or "most qualified candidate" won't be picked. Yet this isn't an abstract exercise. I've yet to hear if the three leading candidates, Brown Jackson, Kruger, and Childs, aren't among the most qualified and who then would be the "best". This argument boils down to, yes exclusionary hiring practices are bad mmmkay... Nominations of USSC justices by nature have always been exclusionary because a President will always pick someone who they feel ideologically agrees with them. Trump said in the 2016 campaign he would pick Pro-Life justices like Scalia, that is his prerogative under the Constitution. It's fantasy to expect that Biden or any other President wouldn't have such limitations to who he would pick.
Some of the "good enough" - Steve Nash, Karl Malone, John Stockton, Clyde Drexler, Kawhi Leonard, Kobe Bryant It's hard to know who will be the best. The reality is there is a limit on objective qualities (including how that it is defined and measured) to define "the best". Subjective qualities will always be part of the decision. Mix that up and some play the statistic game, some play the fit game, some play the gut game... The fit game could be I think our team needs a PG and I'm only choosing "the best" PG even though "the best" pick is a Center.
Relatively young and easy on the eyes - Melissa Murray is my pick of the available candidates. If I were a senator these would be my only important qualifications.
1. If 'good enough' is actually good enough, what do you need the best for? 2. It is probably hubris to think you can actually identify who 'the best' is. 3. Whatever your methodology for picking 'the best', it probably has bias built into it, especially for highly qualitative decisions like these. So you're probably deceiving yourself if you think you're optimizing for merit. 4. At some point (probably the 'good enough' point) considerations besides how good someone is at a job become more relevant. 5. Even if you get 'the best', the future is uncertain. Marginal differences in talent are overwhelmed by simple volatility. So it is probably also hubris to think that you can pick 'the best' person and have a better chance at the best outcome. Anyway, Joe Biden is going to try to make the best pick for maximizing the value to Joe Biden. So, 'the best' to him is going to be the person who covers as many of his priorities as possible. They'll probably need to be good enough on merit, but they also have to be politically aligned with the sort of court outcomes he wants to see, and they have to signal to the electorate in a way that optimizes a potential re-election run for Biden. It would be completely irrational for him to pick the most meritorious jurist if that guy was a conservative white male republican. He might revolutionize jurisprudence and usher in a golden age of prosperity and harmony, but Joe Biden will have meanwhile lost his re-election. All the bellyaching about 'the best' is just trying to nudge the economics of that choice to make 'black' and 'female' incrementally less profitable for Biden.
