ok thanks. You clarified my point. You want a black women to represent black women. BTW, that is not the point of the courts.
Yes it's really stupid to rationalize the fact for 200+ years a black woman has never been a SC justice given how much of a significant portion of the nation's demographic they represented since the beginning of this nation. Yes it's really stupid to treat finishing a SC justice as if we are trying to find the MJ of judges as if there is only one qualified person in existence to fill the role just to dismiss correcting a 200+ year old injustice. Answer me this. Does a black woman in the US exist who can perform the duties of a SC justice admirably?
Worse than that, the company you want to work for is actually a monopolist so you can't even turn to a competitor to find a place to practice your chosen profession. But I don't care how the potential nominees feel. They can suck it. This is one of the most powerful positions in the world, and I'm not going to subordinate the interests of the country to the feelings of some otherwise-very-successful judge. This isn't really a "job" like I would have; the only similarity is that there is a salary attached. It's not even like other federal judgeships -- the Supreme Court is the head of a coequal branch of political power. It's a position of great official authority and responsibility and the ideas of fair play and nondiscrimination that are important in the job market are completely out of place here. I think you make a good point that there are other considerations of representation that could be addressed with this appointment that aren't. Class representation could have been it. Religious representation could have as well. There are no evangelicals on the court at all, and haven't been since Hugo Black retired in 1971. Given that 25% of the country identifies as evangelical, that seems like a problem. Also, there's never been a justice to admit he was an atheist. And we're still under-represented on women, generally, who should have roughly half the seats. Educational diversity is also lacking. It could have been any of those things, or several at once (as it still may be). But it is Biden that decides which it'll be. That's his role and responsibility per the Constitution. If Biden says a black woman is the only qualified candidate because she'd bring the perspective of a black woman to the court, so be it. We elected him knowing he had that prerogative, just like we knew Trump would pick the kind of justices he would pick. On the latter, we didn't like it, but we accepted it. Vote against him if you can manage to vote any harder than you otherwise would have done.
Were/are you equally appalled that Reagan pledged to appoint a woman to the SC and then proceeded to do it?
Hmm... a black man, and a hispanic woman... imagine that? btw, what is this team you are talking about? Seems three republicans more or less did the same thing as Biden (and you tend to avoid criticizing them).
Agreed. Maybe Trump will promise to appoint one when he gets his next crack at it. Heck, maybe Biden will get another chance soon and with the black woman already in the fold he'll look to represent other communities.
I am up for that (especially the Native American). One reason I was so happy that Deb Haaland was named Secretary of the Interior (the first Native American Secretary in a cabinet, and the second Native American to serve in a Cabinet), and was mad that republican senators were opposing her.
Thanks for playing! If 50% of the population wasn't represented (ie: women), then there is a clear case to state the system has some form of discrimination. To state you will no longer be discriminatory towards a certain segment of population is not being discriminatory. Again, these are really poor arguments intended only to say 'gotcha'. Black people are represented. Women are represented. As I stated before, if Biden simply selected a black woman w/out opening his mouth, this would never have been a big issue. Also, I was a kid when Reagan nominated Oconner.
So, does your adult self think Reagan was wrong to say he was going to appoint a woman prior to appointing one? In not sure if I saw a yes or no in your answer.
Lets see... both Presidents. Both in their seventies. Both have two syllable names. Hmm... I wonder what the difference is between the two of them that space ghost approved of one of them limiting his possible candidates and pre-announcing he would nominate a minority as USSC justice but didn't approve of the other preannouncing he would nominate a minority as USSC justice. Hmm... I wonder what that difference could be?
These are the incredibly dumb games you frequently play. You are completely caught up in your own narrative that you refuse to see the other persons point of view. Women make up 50.8% of the population Blacks make up 12.1% That would give black women somewhere around 6%. If liberals like yourself, and conservatives too, actually gave a **** about what they preach, they would perhaps observe the inequality of people in poverty. As I mentioned before, only two of the current justices came from anything remotely close to poverty. Both minorities. Everyone else was middle or upper class. Many who never went without anything serious in their life. Now I imagine you believe in the institutional definition of poverty. One person, 13k. Two, 16k, Three, 20k. This roughly makes up 12% of Americans. Of course the rest of us know that number is nonsense. Poverty levels are much higher. So if we actually cared about our platform, perhaps we would instead say "hey, we have a poverty problem. Lets focus on a judge who comes from poverty. Its not wrong to discriminate against class. And if history has taught us anything from the two we have on court, it will likely be a minority." But no. Liberals are terrible with their messages. Because they are no different than the selfishness found in conservatives.
First... you have me confused with a liberal. In my multi decades of voting I have yet to vote for a Democrat for federal or state office. I see other points of view because i do look at both sides and make attempts to understand the other person's argument when discussing controversial subjects. Understanding their position without summarily dismissing it based on which side they are on is something we, as a country, lost a long time ago. I agree that it would have been better had Biden simply named a black woman without announcing it. That being said, I'm pretty sure most Biden haters would have said he didn't really consider anyone but a black woman and a white man never had a chance.
Several posters including the one I was responding too have said that Biden is putting diversity ahead of qualifications. By saying 'than' that implies that qualifications are a secondary concern. That only works if you believe that there aren't qualified black woman who could be judges.
You're digging your heels in like many others. Have you considered a white male could be qualified to represent a black woman? If I was a black woman, I would not want Kamala Harris representing me. Stacy Abrams, sure. We dont NEED a black woman to represent black women. Next we will need a gay black woman to represent gay black women. Then a transgender black woman. Then a transgender black woman who is in their 30's. This ignorance goes on forever. The supreme court is not congress. We should not select judges based on representation of a certain class. We absolutely should encourage diversity.
