Biden Promises To Use Race And Gender To Pick The Next SCOTUS Justice - Page 2 - 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.
#15209349
Rugoz wrote:Oh please, let's not pretend supreme court justice is a "senior position in gov't". It's a politicized as it gets and nobody even hides it.


It may be, but the position does require technical competency. SCOTUS justices are expected to know what they are doing and have a CV to prove it.

Why not just hire the Black woman without saying anything? Why are so called progressives so eager to disregard the merits of the people they want to support?

I live in Chicago, which elected a Black lesbian mayor 3 years ago and it turns out that was what people cared about - not her ideas (some good, some questionable) or her own prior experience (she had plenty to be a mayor on her own merit). I don't even think she's been a bad mayor, even if I don't completely align with her ideologically.
#15209352
wat0n wrote:It may be, but the position does require technical competency. SCOTUS justices are expected to know what they are doing and have a CV to prove it.


Does it? The professionaliziation of the SCOTUS is a modern thing. Did it bring any benefits? It's just another check on power, and if you ask me it would be better to replace it with randomly selected citizens.
#15209358
As @Beren mentioned, this is political theatre.

Biden gets to look progressive. The Republicans can block his nomination, as they almost certainly will. He can turn around and call them racist and sexist. He will probably even be right.

But he thinks he will profit from this media circus. He is probably right.

Kavanaugh is a clear example of how Republicans have ignored merit in the past. Biden is probably hoping to point that out. That will be amusing.

It was inevitable that Democrats would learn from Trump and start using this divisivenesses as a political tool.
#15209364
Rugoz wrote:Does it? The professionaliziation of the SCOTUS is a modern thing. Did it bring any benefits? It's just another check on power, and if you ask me it would be better to replace it with randomly selected citizens.


What? Since when? Even in the first SCOTUS (the Jay court) all judges were (obviously) lawyers by profession, some were top jurists of their generation or had experience in the judiciary.
#15209374
Kamala Harris was a good choice for VP. That he wasn't a extra-white elderly male Boomer, probably really pisses off some of the racists.

Using race and gender is as valid a way to pick a SCOTUS as the ways they've done it in the past. Normally they only pick them based on what they'll do for them or for pushing an agenda.
#15209377
Igor Antunov wrote:Imagine not promising to use merit instead. Is this what idiocracy looks like?

Since when has ‘merit’ (however that’s defined) determined who gets what? Political patronage has always been the name of the game. The only difference now is that politicians are openly saying it, for virtue-signalling purposes.
#15209378
wat0n wrote:What? Since when? Even in the first SCOTUS (the Jay court) all judges were (obviously) lawyers by profession, some were top jurists of their generation or had experience in the judiciary.


I remember reading that. I think it referred to experience other than private practice. So yes, they were lawyers, but how many lawyers are there in the US? The idea that only handful of people in America are qualified to serve on the court and therefore a black woman must be unqualified is silly.

Also, I don't really think the SCOTUS should be a citizen jury, but given its highly political nature it's perfectly fair to make sure all population groups are adequately represented.
#15209380
Potemkin wrote:Since when has ‘merit’ (however that’s defined) determined who gets what? Political patronage has always been the name of the game. The only difference now is that politicians are openly saying it, for virtue-signalling purposes.

So Biden just makes the world more honest and progressive, it's a brave new and better world actually. A positively historic moment, when race and gender is officially declared to determine us as people first and foremost, and this is a president's virtue-signalling. :lol:
#15209382
Beren wrote:So Biden just makes the world more honest and progressive, it's a brave new and better world actually. A positively historic moment, when race and gender is officially declared to determine us as people first and foremost, and this is a president's virtue-signalling.


The US has a long tradition of trial by jury, where jurors are selected to represent the community. It's nothing new whatsoever.
#15209384
Potemkin wrote:Since when has ‘merit’ (however that’s defined) determined who gets what? Political patronage has always been the name of the game. The only difference now is that politicians are openly saying it, for virtue-signalling purposes.


It's to do with perception, which informs the broader system. Pretending it's merit based is a less idiotic message than pretending it's about skin color or genitals.

This is throwing virtue signalling on top of outright kleptocracy for the bemusement of idiot constituents. A deeper, even more self serving sort of corruption only possible in an idiocracy.
#15209387
Pants-of-dog wrote:Biden gets to look progressive. The Republicans can block his nomination, as they almost certainly will. He can turn around and call them racist and sexist. He will probably even be right.

But he thinks he will profit from this media circus. He is probably right.

I wonder if that's his calculus, but the Republicans would almost certainly accept any Black woman nominee if he weren't so pushy in order to ramp up his waning political support. Now there's a chance he's going to fail in the Senate as he's been failing to stabilise Ukraine and unite NATO behind himself with being that much pushy in that case as well. Either he or Kamala Harris or the Democratic Party in general will possibly pay a high price for this.
#15209390
Beren wrote:So Biden just makes the world more honest and progressive, it's a brave new and better world actually. A positively historic moment, when race and gender is officially declared to determine us as people first and foremost, and this is a president's virtue-signalling. :lol:

It’s a brave new world @Beren…. ;)
#15209394
Rugoz wrote:I remember reading that. I think it referred to experience other than private practice. So yes, they were lawyers, but how many lawyers are there in the US? The idea that only handful of people in America are qualified to serve on the court and therefore a black woman must be unqualified is silly.

Also, I don't really think the SCOTUS should be a citizen jury, but given its highly political nature it's perfectly fair to make sure all population groups are adequately represented.


Who claimed there are no qualified black women?
#15209526
wat0n wrote:
Who claimed there are no qualified black women?



The whining is a reflection of racism.

One of the whines is identity politics, but Republicans have been improperly shoving Federalist Society kooks into the court for years. It doesn't get more "identity politics" than that..

There have been 113 SC justices, all but 6 have been White men. 5 have been women. The law is all about striking a balance between competing interests. You can't do that if you're not there.

It would be a little different if the country weren't neck deep in racism and misogyny.

But we are.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

Pretty .... this is really pretty ! ivan any […]

So, Lurkers, please note that Bluto blames Bide[…]

Australian Federal Election

It doesn’t matter in any way except that I like sa[…]

A legal argument has to meet certain standards. T[…]