Biden Promises To Use Race And Gender To Pick The Next SCOTUS Justice - Page 5 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15209729
wat0n wrote:And yet that will resonate among those who do care, precisely because of Biden's announcement. That's the people @Rancid is speaking about.

I don't think the GOP ever made race or gender a big deal in nominating their judges. For them, the big deal was ideology and the most recent example was Amy Coney Barrett where the debate centered on her whether she's an anti-abortion hardline conservative. If I'm not mistaken, the current sole Black justice is also a hardline conservative, nominated by the GOP, and Bush I did not announce he was nominated because of his race (this did not stop Democrats from opposing him either, even before Anita Hill showed up). Bush I was also concerned about getting at least a passing grade from the American Bar Association as far as his merits were concerned, since Clarence Thomas was on the weaker side although he was still graded as "qualified". I'm guessing he appreciates not being labeled as a diversity hire, even more so since he claims had to deal with something similar early in his career:


Bernie was right. So long as Democrats marry themselves to all this identity politics bullshit. They will always fucking lose.

It's crazy, because it's soooooo fucking easy to beat Republicans if they just stop it with the identity politics bullshit.
#15209730
Rancid wrote:
Then you should stop using blanket statements, define the continuum, and note exactly were you think each person in America sits on the continuum.



What has been studied? That announcing race and gender as a job requirement wins you elections?



Wit ha subject such as this, you basically always have to think politically.



You are making my point. Democrats are going to lose. This whole thing is theirs to lose, and they are fucking losing it. Ridiculous.



They will lose bigger than they should, is my point.




In the early 80s, I had a history prof who did her phd on slavery and racism. I learned a lot from her. She got here phd at the U of Virginia. Which to say in the South. She liked to say that was why she taught in Maine.

To be honest, I don't know what to do. America is intensely racist, and the suburbanites tell themselves they aren't racist because they are so much nicer than the blatant racists.

At the same time, fascists are using all that racism in their attempt to destroy democracy.

It's going to be a close thing, the next years will be all hands on deck. Or what civilisation we have gets pissed away.
#15209731
late wrote:To be honest, I don't know what to do. America is intensely racist, and the suburbanites tell themselves they aren't racist because they are so much nicer than the blatant racists.


This is why Democrats cannot get and keep their votes. :lol:

God damn it, I really don't feel like defending white suburbanites, but what I'm reading from you us curious. So...exactly how are they racist? Further, where is your threshold of acceptable versus not acceptable on the racism continuum?
Last edited by Rancid on 31 Jan 2022 16:15, edited 1 time in total.
#15209733
late wrote:Biden won because of Clyburn. Do you understand? It's politics 101, we can't take the Black vote for granted any more.

What the whining about identity politics is about is recognising and dealing with their concerns.


The more you post, the most it re-enforces my belief that Democrats are going to lose. :lol:

Also, Democrats should have never taken the black vote for granted. Moreover, they should never have treated them as a homogenous monolithic group.... which funny enough... is kind of racist. :lol:
Last edited by Rancid on 31 Jan 2022 16:52, edited 1 time in total.
#15209734
@late

What makes you believe you know or understand what the African Americans' concerns are? I hope you won't say something silly like "getting Black SCOTUS justices because they understand us" since Clarence Thomas should be like THE refutation of that idea for any Democrat, given he's arguably the most conservative sitting justice right now.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing at least some of their concerns are the same ones everyone has: Being treated well and fairly, being able to get jobs that allow them to fill their needs, to see their lives constantly improving, to have control over their own lives and to be able to pursue their happiness as they see fit. I find it hard to see how would a quota in the SCOTUS deliver any of these.
#15209737
wat0n wrote:@late

What makes you believe you know or understand what the African Americans' concerns are? I hope you won't say something silly like "getting Black SCOTUS justices because they understand us" since Clarence Thomas should be like THE refutation of that idea for any Democrat, given he's arguably the most conservative sitting justice right now.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing at least some of their concerns are the same ones everyone has: Being treated well and fairly, being able to get jobs that allow them to fill their needs, to see their lives constantly improving, to have control over their own lives and to be able to pursue their happiness as they see fit. I find it hard to see how would a quota in the SCOTUS deliver any of these.


Basically this.

That's one of the big problems with Democrats. They are far more concerned with symbolism and image than anything else. Apparently the white people I work with that volunteer to teach inner city kids (mostly Black and Latino) how to code, how to problem solve, etc. are racist and not worth praise. Yet, they are doing EXACTLY the hard work that's needed to right all of these historical wrongs that have been wrought upon Blacks in particular (but other non-white minorities too of course). What do they get for using their privileged and knowledge to help non-white kids? They get called racist anyway. Then you wonder why they aren't voting for you....

Fuck the SCOTUS nominations (obviously I'm not against the nomination, but that's not what's important if you really want ot solve these problems). Go fucking invest in kids that grew up like I did. My college experience would have gone way easier if I had learned to code in middle school like all of my white counter parts did.

My first experience coding was sophomore year of college. All the other white kids had years of coding under their belt. This is where the investment needs to go if you want to see more non-whites at the tops of companies and governments. The work needs to go into kids, not symbolic gestures.
Last edited by Rancid on 31 Jan 2022 17:07, edited 5 times in total.
#15209738
wat0n wrote:
@late

What makes you believe you know or understand what the African Americans' concerns are? I hope you won't say something silly like "getting Black SCOTUS justices because they understand us" since Clarence Thomas should be like THE refutation of that idea for any Democrat, given he's arguably the most conservative sitting justice right now.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm guessing at least some of their concerns are the same ones everyone has: Being treated well and fairly, being able to get jobs that allow them to fill their needs, to see their lives constantly improving, to have control over their own lives and to be able to pursue their happiness as they see fit. I find it hard to see how would a quota in the SCOTUS deliver any of these.



It's not a quota...

Frankly we've had extreme identity politics for years, picking Federalist Society kooks. So where was the screaming about "identity politics"??

Clarence isn't conservative, he's a kook. If he was an ordinary justice, he'd been in deep trouble over conflict of interest issues.

He also doesn't refute all the noise about nominating a Black woman. That's a completely artificial whine. But if someone is in denial, it works..
#15209744
Rancid wrote:The more you post, the most it re-enforces my belief that Democrats are going to lose. :lol:

Exactly. :up:

Also, the Democratic Party can't stop with identity politics because it's hijacked by identity politics, it's not just a part of their agenda.

Anyway, Biden's a White Boomer (or just an old person anyway), so he should rely on Whites and Boomers mostly and do his politics accordingly, although the Black vote is also important, of course. However, Whites and Boomers believe America still is or at least it's still supposed to be a meritocracy in the first place, so this attitude shown by him can alienate them while just nominating a Black woman for SCOTUS justice would be enough to reach out to Black voters.
#15209755
Beren wrote:
Exactly. :up:

Also, the Democratic Party can't stop with identity politics because it's hijacked by identity politics, it's not just a part of their agenda.

Anyway, Biden's a White Boomer (or just an old person anyway), so he should rely on Whites and Boomers mostly and do his politics accordingly, although the Black vote is also important, of course. However, Whites and Boomers believe America still is or at least it's still supposed to be a meritocracy in the first place, so this attitude shown by him can alienate them while just nominating a Black woman for SCOTUS justice would be enough to reach out to Black voters.



Sigh, try exactly wrong.

We got hijacked by reality. Dems have taken the Black vote largely for granted. But a number of things have changed, and that is no longer a good idea.

As I keep having to say, the two front runners are superb candidates. In a truly equal society, Kavanaugh wouldn't have a prayer, and Jackson would already be on the SC bench.

Get f***ing real.

The reality here is identity politics, but the identity of Whites, not Blacks...
#15209793
Rancid wrote:The more important thing would be to remove life terms. Make it 11 years.

No, this is wrong. The kind of Justices we want on the USSC is moderates. Justices who don't have an axe to grind. Who can see clearly the effects of their decisions.
. . . One way to do this is to let each Pres. in June of his 1st year of each term force 1 Justice to retire. I'm assuming that the Pres. would choose the most offensive and radical on the other side of the political divide. Doing this would increase the number of moderates.
. . . Getting an extremist confirmed would likely get your Justice retired in 4 to 8 years.

In order to have more moderate Justices we ought to go back to a 2/3 or 3/5 vote being required to confirm one. This has the problem of what to do when one party simply refuses to confirm anyone no matter how moderate they are. One solution for this would be to let the Pres. fill the seat (after 2 nominees have failed to be confirmed) with a temp Justice until someone is confirmed. Since the Pres, could choose an extremist who could be on the court for 4 or 8 years, the other party might want to confirm a moderate for life or for a long term. However, with 1 justice being retired each 4 years, how long will a Justice last in any case?
. . . This might result in the USSC being made up of a majority who are replaced as soon as someone can get confirmed. These would all be extremists. This would be bad, but is it likely? Also, it seems like the court would likely reflect the views of the current Pres.

OTOH, adding about 10 more Justices who are randomly selected from a pool of all living exactly 40 year old lawyers might be a good thing. Especially if half had to be cis females. Females are less likely to be into power games. IMHO. YMMV.
.
Last edited by Steve_American on 01 Feb 2022 13:32, edited 1 time in total.
#15209834
SpecialOlympian wrote:I think it's hilarious watching white men lose their shit because the next nominee isn't just default cookie cutter white dude.

"White" Protestants have been under-represented for some time. There are two Jewish justices, there were three. The Cultural Marxist hate doctrine is that if Jews do better than non Jewish "Whites" its because they are more intelligent and hard working, but if "Whites" do better than so called "Blacks" its because they are stupid. ignorant evil racists.

Jews are massively over represented in America's top institutions, at the top universities they make up, up to 25% of the intake. I would not have a problem with this, any more than I have a problem with Hindus being the most successful religious group in America. But the informal race quotas mean that non Jewish Whites are massively under represented in America's top institutions. Similar patterns are developing across the western world.

I noticed Whoopy Goldberg accidentally put her foot in it by pointing out that virtually all Hitler's targeted victims, Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, Gauls and Estonians were "White"? Of course Hitler liked to pretend he was a White supremacist. :lol: But I always thought forgetting to put Africans into the intermarriage laws was a bit of a give away.
#15209840
Godstud wrote:
Retire the SCOTUS judges at 65, like everyone else!

Have them serve 8 year terms, replacing 2 of them every 2 years.



Nope.

I might be willing to consider retirement at 80.

The problem, as I see it, is that the retirement of a judge should not be able to make a dramatic difference. That's crazy.

There are ways to get stability, but there are better options.

Here's my 2 cents, expand the court to a dozen, and alternate the nominating party. So if last time it was Republicans, next time it's Dems.
Last edited by late on 01 Feb 2022 12:47, edited 1 time in total.
#15209852
Steve_American wrote:No, this is wrong. The kind of Justices we want on the USSC is moderates. Justices who don't have an axe to grind. Who can see clearly the effects of their decisions.
. . . One way to do this is to let each Pres. in June of his 1st year of each term force 1 Justice to retire. I'm assuming that the Pres. would choose the most offensive and radical on the other side of the political divide. Doing this would increase the number of moderates.
. . . Getting an extremist confirmed would likely get your Justice retired in 4 to 8 years.

In order to have more moderate Justices we ought to go back to a 2/3 or 3/5 vote being required to confirm one. This has the problem of what to do when one party simply refuses to confirm anyone no matter how moderate they are. One solution for this would be to let the Pres. fill the seat (after 2 nominees have failed to be confirmed) with a temp Justice until someone is confirmed. Since the Pres, could choose an extremist who could be on the court for 4 or 8 years, the other party might want to confirm a moderate for life or for a long term. However, with 1 justice being retired each 4 years, how long will a Justice last in any case?
. . . This might result in the USSC being made up of a majority who are replaced as soon as someone can get confirmed. These would all be extremists. This would be bad, but is it likely? Also, it seems like the court would likely reflect the views of the current Pres.

OTOH, adding about 10 more Justices who are randomly selected from a pool of all living exactly 40 year old lawyers might be a good thing. Especially if half had to be cis females. Females are less likely to be into power games. IMHO. YMMV.
.

One more thing.

Suppose one party nominated and got confirmed a few moderates and the other party just kept nominating extremists who never got confirmed but were seated with my ideas above.
. . . In this case I predict there would be wild swings in the court with precedents lasting for 6 years, and this would convince the mass of the people that the court is partisan. This might make the people favor one party over the other more resulting in one party rule for a while, but a party of the majority of voters.

Would this be bad?

OTOH, with ACC, aka AGW, threatening all of our economies, do we really have decades more of anything like a good life? Or, is a final climate disaster looming in about 20 years? One that kills 4 out of 5 humans alive then and reduces the survivors to what we would call poverty.
.
Last edited by Steve_American on 02 Feb 2022 00:36, edited 1 time in total.
#15209861
Godstud wrote:
You don't need some illusion of stability. You need bipartisan judges. None of them are that, currently. They've been put there to serve agendas.



I think the word you want is centrist.

What you have there is illusory, while I don't want kooks on the court, you do need diversity. Partly that comes from education and experience.

Let me give you an example, I have followed the career of Judge Posner, off and on, for over a decade. He's a conservative, a real one, none of the crazy radicalism that gets called conservative nowadays.

He's also one of the best judges in the country, some have said he is the best. He came to conclusion that the new voting laws were voter suppression tactics. Unfortunately, it was a dissenting opinion.

Under the laughable assumption I had a vote, I'd put him on the SC in a heartbeat.

He also excels at business law, although I don't always agree with him. The SC needs skills, not an ideology test. It really needs someone with extensive civil rights experience right now. It's too late for Prof Tribe, but a prof of Constitutional Law would come in handy.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Posner
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over mains[…]

So the evidence shows that it was almost certainl[…]

Yes, and that conditional statement is not necessa[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0pAf3aBt18 How […]