Samuel Alito said LSAT scores aren't so important, way back in 2014: Sam Alito: A Civil Man - The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.
You're not describing prejudice - you're describing the possible results of prejudice. ... and, as always with prejudice... It's not about who was included (in this case, black women).... it's about who was excluded. And it has always been about the excluded. It was about women being excluded from voting rights... blacks not being allowed to own property... Excluding a SCJ candidate because they're black or female is just as wrong and just as prejudiced as excluding an SCJ candidate because they're male and Indian. You're being just as bad as the people you hate. All exclusion based solely on skin color, gender, religion, or ethnicity is prejudiced and wrong.
O gee that's so convenient. Prejudice is always wrong! Ya no ****. It was wrong for the 200+ years a black woman never being confirmed for a SC justice position and it's equally wrong when someone wants to make sure that this time a black woman gets one of those positions after 200 years of never having it Just amazingly convenient that we all care about being prejudice now. But in reality no .. absolutely no. Making sure that a black woman is selected for a SC justice position is not as prejudice as repeating the same 200 year pattern of not finding a black woman for the position. How do people like you even come up with such absurd logic?
Did he ever say he was excluding men from consideration? Until Biden, I haven't seen any recent president openly exclude candidates based on gender or race. I could be wrong about that - and if I am, that president was acting on prejudice. All prejudice is wrong.
Prejudice? That implies some kind of unfair or improper consideration. Considering there has never been a black female on scotus, consideration was fully proper. White people aren't the victim I couldn't tell you the LSAT score of a single person I went to law school with. No one gives a ****.
Yep he did... "It will be a woman, a very talented, very brilliant woman," Trump said, after the crowd overwhelmingly cheered for a female nominee. "I haven't chosen yet, but we have numerous women on the list."
No, he wasn't. It was only an issue now that Biden is president. He didn't even know trump did it. He certainly didn't complain here about it. I am sure it was before his time, but no complaints about Reagan promising to nominate a woman. Well before his time, but Eisenhower targeted a Catholic (excluding judges from all other religions) And Reagan again was apparently "prejudiced" again, when he went after an Italian American (exluding all else)... No... it is only when a Democrat wants to add an African American woman to the court that riles up republicans...
If he considered men, and then said this when he had narrowed down his choices, he probably wasn't being prejudiced. If he excluded candidates from consideration simply because of their gender, he was absolutely being prejudiced.
btw, I think I must be prejudiced. I voted for President Obama. He was the first black President. I didn't consider the white man running that year. "Sounds like... " Good that you are still giving trump the benefit of the doubt. Hate to think you would have been so harsh in your criticism of him as you have been with that Democrat Biden.
as soon as former POTUS, #45, releases his tax returns, which he had campaigned (in 2015/2016) to do so
It's pretty much this as both sides understand the game. Merrick Garland went from a moderate into a polarizing figure just because Republicans didn't reject him outright. People are ultimately at the whims of the most vocal constituents. Maybe it's an abortion rights activist one day. An absolute gun nutter another. I don't remember Sotomeyer being opposed this early, but I guess it's the sheer audacity for a presidential candidate to telegraph their next scrotus pick. Amy Barrett's babies are rollin in their graves!
If, when voting, you excluded consideration of any candidate simply because of their skin color, then, yeah, you were prejudiced. "Benefit of the doubt" ..?.. I just said, if Trump excluded candidates based on gender, he was prejudiced. And that's true for any other president. Exclusion based on gender or race is prejudiced and wrong, whether it was done by Biden, Trump, Reagan, or anyone else.
Here is an issue.. for decades everyone except white men were excluded from consideration for the Supreme Court. Now, when white men are being excluded, it is a problem.
... and you should not see this strictly as a black vs. white issue. Case in point Sri Srinivasan (not white) just got the brunt end of Biden's prejudice. When you use prejudice to explicitly include only one race, you commit an act of prejudice against all other races. The problem is not about who is included, but who is excluded.
